1) The animals were taking care of humans that were in need of help.

2) The difference was day and night. The mother and father both created the light and darkness in the day. Bringing the moon, sun and earth.

3) The sky-father created the moon and stars for the night time.

1) The humans fell from heaven and came into the world with animals. 2) Animals cared for the human when she was ill and gave her a place to stay until she was healed. 3) The twins traveled the world to create environments and climates that humans could live in. This lead to mountains, trees, lakes, forest, rivers, etc.

What roles do sugar and slavery play in the expansion of European empires?

Sugar was becoming very popular in Asia and was quickly discovered by the Europeans. The Portuguese had to find new land to grow the sugar cane because it was required to have the right conditions to grow. This is when the Portuguese found the Guanches, an African tribe in order to take care of the sugar cane. This helped the Portuguese become very wealthy.

What were the three major crops developed in the Americas? What impact did they have?

The three major crops were corn, beans and squash which all had nutritional needs that sustained the cities and civilizations.

1. Native Americans interacted with numerous people from all areas. This lead to the exchange of different resources, religions, labor ways, and ideas. These exchanges often sealed social and political relationships. It allowed the people who gave to earn prestige and placed an obligation to those they gave to. That was how the relationship was sealed. One person did a favor and the other must reciprocate.
2. All European nations began experiencing massive population growth after the black plague, which increased the economy and the demand for consumer goods. These demands lead to advances like ship building so sea merchants were able to compete with their fellow merchants. Growing economies lead to bigger kingdoms and powerful monarchs. These kingdom's could pull together the resources needed for large voyages. European nations were also interested in trading with the wealthiest countries allowing them to seek out the best trading routes.
3. There was an increasing need for slaves and it had existed all the way back to the Roman Empire. The Portuguese became major purchasers and sellers of the slave trade allowing them to have influence on the way slave trading was done and the practice of it.

This has interesting implications for the argument learning in simulations - because in game, Rachel's values are in direct contrast to her values in world.

Games inherently have a way to win, and it seems that "beating the game" is more important to Rachel than her real-life values. I wonder if the decisions she makes in-game have any predictive power over how she will choose when faced with similar situations in-life. Will she spend her real money and continue to care for stray cats as an adult, or will she be "driven by monetary gain"?

It's interesting to frame this in morality, because I'm not sure that using a "cheat code" is actually cheating, since it is built into the game by the designers.

It definitely gets at inequalities - since the cheat code user needs to have access to the websites, manuals, etc, that list the codes - but I'm still wondering if it could actually be classified as cheating (in the same way that doping in sports, or plagiarism is).

This straight up, 100% reminds me of lpp and the concept of apprenticeship. Rachel is becoming a part of a community, but using the expertise of her brother to also become an expert in the game. I wonder if she began being exposed to the video game by just observing her brother?

This question is embedded in some larger context, right? If we think about this, we need to understand that society has a view of video games and them not teaching children anything. Makes me wonder what kinds of questions we would be asking if society did not have this view.

Connecting to my comment above, why don't the authors interrogate the connected controllers embodiment in the same way?

I wonder why this analysis does not investigate the perceived connections the physical controller creates for participants. it seems that, as the mediation between the two sites, it is very important. Here we see it highlighted as a visual connection between the two.

What about not knowing when you are supposed to be knowledgeable in contrast to not knowing when you are not supposed to be knowledgeable? A math professor failing to guide the student about updating his computer in comparison with the same math professor failing to guide the same student about setting up an equation from a word problem?

What is she supposed to be learning here?

These do seem like two very distinct ways of thinking about privacy. What is the implication then of a constituent voting for their representative (or other government official) to "protect their right to privacy" if they have such different ideas about what that means?

So essentially, is the mechanic that you have this "fun" online community where you can make avatars, talk to your friends, build houses etc., but to do that you need money. So you sit through science games as a way to earn that money?

I wonder here about the motivations to choose a particular skin color. Whether players statistically choose the race they are in real life or one that is opposite.

This is so fascinating to me. Could it be due to the lack of wanting to look through all 30,000 faces? Although I think not, this is interesting when I think about figured worlds. When thinking of Whyville, you would think of it as its own figured world, but it is interesting to see how the Whyville avatar is created by the person. This would be influenced, I would think, by the real-life figured world. They are both overlapped.

This is interesting. Reminds me of intent participation. The Whyvillians need to voluntarily sign up to work with basically strangers. Connecting it back with the earlier point about race, makes me wonder how Whyvillians determine if they want to sign up with a particular collaboration.

Would a research expect to same similar trends as they see in World of Warcraft? Is that why it is not explored. When i think of this in the light of LPP i would see it as the same field of mastery (online life), just a different setting. In the end though, the same skills are learned in each setting.

This is a very interesting way to study race. Could we say that we could assess the players' views of race from this online platform? Makes me wonder if people will respond the same way on an online platform as they would in a real-life setting.

Don't know the game, so this is just based on the picture below and experience with other learning situations (italics intended). Are they learning about all of these, or just getting used to take their consequences into account? You don't need to learn about gravity and gravitational forces to get used to take into account that things fall...

Is this a known/researched fact, or more of an assumption driving the commercial side of the game?

Any idea on why this particular car? Sponsorship from Toyota?

If this is true, then why do users self-describe as addicted to social media? Especially when we live in an ever more online and technologically driven world.

Any comments on how "the zone" works in education?

interesting to see how learning differs for people in the same context. I would think that the meaning people would create in connected different sites of knowledge as being different, but not what is actually being learned.

I think it is most important to look at the connections across sites and how this influence the knowledge being gained. I keep thinking of the skatepark, and where else these skaters are learning tricks. Would watching youtube videos be a site?

I don't really understand this. Wouldn't multisited approach make it more "holistic"?

interesting to me how they referenced "historical context". Also what larger structures?

This is putting emphasis on the earlier point of the role the culture plays. Also, thinking about the different types of knowledge that the children who are experiencing racialization are experiencing

Can the teacher become a student and the student become a teacher? Why is this idea so appalling to some?

I'm not sure how relevant this is to everyone, but in the Jewish ed. world there is a lot of talk about making school more like camp. Leaders and policy makers see the success of sleep away camps at helping kids develop an identification with the Jewish people (which is a priority for many of these same leaders/policy makers) and so both Day School and Supplementary School educators are told to bring camp-like experiential modalities into their classrooms.

I'm wondering however if this is a caution against that kind of thinking? Do Vossoughi & Gutiérrez (and other advocates of multisited ethnography) think that borders between the various sites need to be defined or if the borders are permeable, is this kind of analysis harder?

This is just schooling with a tangible/narrow goal. One of the downsides of the learning in action is the situation-specific content and learning (Resnick), and this is now being attached to schooling. And they are also being trained to run equipment that, according to the description, is extremely expensive and delicate and is probably beyond the economic capital of most of the members of the community, even if grouped. Not that much social justice to me

So, in the end, are community members able to pay for this or not? Because this phrase has the implication that the price is higher than for regular produce, so there is no transportation required but still is out of reach for the community. Like Chinese factory workers assembling iPhones... and there is no further development of the issue

This may be just my weak English, but why the use of 'scale' then?

This example of scale making illuminates the work that the people are doing to across idea flows, practices, and space for equity. At this point, I'm understanding multi-sited work in relation to this article to almost be like intersectionality or the multiplicity of identities. Scale is a system of different relations (temporal, social, spatial...) that seem to intersect or exist simultaneously. Or maybe not?

I'm having a hard time parsing out what this means. Is it that: the chairs are present for the students, but embodied activity (and cognition) works to make sense of what the chairs are for the students?

This makes total sense in the embodied world of this exhibit (and of science centers/children's museums in general), but I wonder if "presenting a more material ontology" of other subjects also creates a "fleshier epistemology"?

Do students who visit living history museums to "cook like the colonists" come away with a similar feeling of history being alive in their life (or at least relevant)? What about human-sized prairie dog colonies that are common at zoos - are the kids who play in them more concerned about conservation because of this experience?

I would (unscientifically) argue that these kind of exhibits do work to engender these kinds of feelings (dare I say identification?) in the participants - but what are the conditions where a simulation can become reality?

Desettling doesn't have to be a field trip, does it? can it be anything outside the confines of the classroom?

Group coordination in dancing provides a strong metaphor for students to think about collectivity in broader society.

Maybe this also played a role in why there was a huge dropout rate from the beginning to the end of the year.

Dance will? Or being a part of an organization will?

Influenced by the parent to stay involved in Juniors. This sparks my interest because of the balance that i feel exists with immigrant parents in promoting acclamation to new environment but also keeping true to the native traditions. I am curious to see what role this played in helping shape their child's identity.

Was this because maybe entertainment was defined only by "promiscuous" (as used on the previous page) activities

I wonder where this mentality came from. Why was it seen that young people could not look to the arts for support?

Is the posing causing a richer understanding, or is posing making understanding more easily observable?

Is it ever made explicitly clear what is considered "a pose"?

What is meant by "minimize the role of the 'school context'"

To become fully engulfed in the art work. Is this done to try to understand what the other person was thinking? Would this be more to empathize than to learn? Would learning be considered empathizing?

Does this metaphoric gesture in creating an abstract object/content support critical thinking which support understanding and learning of the piece of art?

Is this something more recent, due to this increase in social media, smart phones and technology? Did this always exists? I think this is something important to look at how this "posing" evolved.

Posing as a combination of social activity and conceptual work being done to make meaning about the artwork. If we are accepting this pose as a "posed question" do visitors ever get an "answer"? Do they know they are asking a question?

I feel like maybe where this is going is that that the gestural act of posing is not a presentation of meaning but a participant in the act of meaning making (learning), let's see..

Not even mandatory, even though these field trips highlight huge methods of exploration for the child. So why is it not mandatory?

How do we define the difference?

Why do we find the need to generalize reaction and appreciation of art? How does that play into the construction of public spaces?

I understand the sentiment here that there is no longer the same type of public spaces for children to interact with. But are these new places "spaceless" places?

I find it hard to deal with the meaning of 'participant' here

In terms of Ma & Munter (2014), is this to provide the arena and to try for people to create the expected setting?

Is the word 'settings' here used for what Ma & Munter (2014) call 'arena' and not 'setting'?

I have a feeling that if Tony Hawk or Bob Burnquist went in and did the exact same thing there'd be awe at first, perhaps some considerations of how "innovative" that use of the park was, leading to many attempting to do the same thing later on.

What Zack seemed to lack was a legitimacy to do this sort of thing. By using the park that way, as the authors write, [he edited the park] in ways that did not aling with the setting as they conceived of it." But if we accept that the riders' own conception of what is and isn't appropriate was itself created by these sorts of "edits" in the past, then you have to wonder what makes an edit accepted and not.

It seems here that the edit conflicted with the established conception of how it was to be used. One has to wonder, then, how bigger, more fundamental "edits" to spaces can occur once norms begin to take firmer root. How would a paradigm shift occur in this kind of space?

How about for Austin? Is this a learning event for him as well? As a more experienced skater, is it understood in the community that part of his "practice" now includes being a resource for novices or no? If it is, is the park also giving him an opportunity to engage in that role?

I don't know about anyone else, but this is the single thing which which baffled me the most when I visited the skate park. Given how many people were there at the same time, I just assumed that there'd be lots of talking with one another about tricks, tips, random chatter, etc. Beside the occasional comment here or there, I was astounded by how quiet it was. I'm curious if anyone else was surprised by this, or if any of you felt the same way.

Turning the arena into a setting for the trick. Context?

I don't see the logical connection of the "because". I mean, those could be available from sources outside the community and rejected by the community

Wow. Kind of harsh. Who gets to decide how this space is used? Just a paragraph up it says "the arena was, in fact, amenable to carving." So even though the space MAY be used for that, someone and some point established the rules against carving in that space. So is that the right of the old-timer? To set and enforce rules?

Is this saying that counter-mapping influences the professional vision of urban space, but also the experiential setting for those who live there?

What, exactly, is the purpose of the organization?

Where one practices the hobby is also an important resource both in terms of access to the practice itself, and to others in the community of practice.

I wonder if this kind of variation can be found in other hobbies. Is it as significant of a factor among model railroaders or people who knit?

I wonder if using people as resources, in whatever case/way, is the most powerful resource tool? Do people really learn the most from human contact?

Which makes me wonder, do the resources change over time? Does the use of the resources change over time?

In reading this point, it makes me understand the difference in resources individuals will have. Not all people will use the resource of notes like Mitchell will.

Does the rarity of certain instances within a given community of learning also pose as a resource? Mitchell's knowledge in know certain events were very rare engaged him to observe more in depth when the instance did occur.

I am interested to see how the concept of engaged participation will play out. How will it be conceptualized and brought into real world terms.

Are these resources (as Jasmine said, not in Azevedo's words) for the practice, understanding the practice not as one night but as the long term commitment to astronomy?

Azevedo introduces a new concept of how to look at self-motivated engagements in a practice. I don't quite understand preference fully though? Is it individualized? Or can be impacted/influenced by other external factors? Identity? Community? Pre-established FoK?

Given everything we are reading, this heading gave me pause -- after all, is he really "practicing" amateur astronomy or is he an amateur astronomer? (A brief search through the text reveals they get into issues of identity -- i searched some keywords and found the quote below -- but I haven't gotten here yet)

"Another prominent preference emerging in Mitchell’s narrative regarded his developing identity in amateur astronomy."

This cannot be possible though if the child has not previously formed that connection, right? I mean the child cannot just form that link without having been taught that you cannot just take things that do not belong to you. A knowledge of the cause-and-effect relationship is needed prior, is it not?

"spectate knowingly" <-->intent participation?

Do you think it can ever be one and not the other, i.e. verbal interaction and non-verbal? Or do you believe both are always tied together?

I am interested in understanding how this develops? Where do they learn it from? Can it be innate?

This would be intent participation, no? The mother is actively involving herself because the situation involves her son. Would the same type of engagement occur if it was a stranger?

Is this because of children's cognitive development not being fully developed? Who is to say that children who have been exposed to a particular problem more frequently than others and have become an expert at that situation are not able to generate a spontaneous explanation to a similar problem? Also what is defining spontaneous?

I couldn't really find a place in the text to throw this up so I just used the header :)

What is the connection between islands of expertise and "lines of practice" (Azevedo)?

Azevdo argues that, "A line of practice is a distinctive, recurrent pattern of "long-term" engagement in a person's practice participation" and continues on to add that it is mediated by preferences and conditions of practice. So then are "lines of practice" the process by which an interest develops into an "island of expertise"?

(Recall that, "preferences refer to the deep, long-term goals, values, and beliefs that a person develops in the practice, whereas conditions of practice refer to the constraints and affordances impinging on the person's practice")

This seems comparable to the Kirshner (youth activism) study where "adult volunteers" replaces parents and "youth" replaces "child". What kind of conversation might best support learning?

This observation makes one wonder, then, how much of the child's development of his island of knowledge is motivated by the response it gets from his parents rather than an innate interest in the subject.

Crowley and Jacobs chose to exclusively tie the concept of island of expertise to children only instead of using it to frame people of all ages. I don't quite understand why this concept wouldn't be applicable to adults (who are not parents) especially hobbyists. Or it just happens to be their example had children?

Maybe they have discovered the key to museum going: speed walk through and only stop if you have something to say - and even then stop only shortly. What might Lave and Wenger say about their participation? Is it peripheral in the "art connoisseur" CoP? Or some tangential CoP?

Probably a long shot, but did you follow any of these "gliders" to another floor or to another area of the exhibit? It would be interesting if these passive viewers were any more "focused" there.

We discussed in our group the following: are you still learning if you are now teaching? We decided yes, as you are learning to take on a new identity of "teacher." Additionally, is the ability of being able to display your knowledge the final step in learning? If you can't prove you've learned (in this case by teaching) then have you really learned what you were supposed to learn?

Does this change the goal of the group? Rather than foster activism, they foster collaboration and decision making? If so, who's goal were they meeting, the adults or the youths?

How is political activism being modeled for these youths? Was there intent participation from which they can observe and learn until they built confidence to proceed independently or were they expected to figure it out on their own with minimal guidance? This is a departure from the examples we have been looking at until now.

What caused the author to be considered part of the community (at least as a newcomer) and gain full access to participation?

Does labeling youth as a political identity, take away from the agency actual youth who are not political active have?

I wonder how this student centered (adult out) model supports and encourages Nasir and Cook's Ideational Resources? Does this freedom allow for more exploration and maturation of ideas about oneself and one's relationship to the practice and the larger world?

This is an interesting frame, because up until now, many of our readings focused on "learning" and not "teaching."

I wonder how this difference in viewpoint could affect research? How would many of the cases that we've already looked at be different if the subject of analysis was the "teacher" (old-timer, parent, museum curator, etc) instead of the "learner"?

This made me think about LPP with respect to a time-horizon. Clearly the student above felt that this approach was rather suboptimal, but what if it had gone on for a longer period of time? Would that have been sufficient to turn that limited peripheral participation into a truly legitimate peripheral participation, and slowly allow the student to have a more central role?

At what point do things like this add to the legitimacy of the process and at what point does it detract?

(I'm going to be really ineloquent right now, but please bear with me)

begin lack-of-eloquence In virtually all of the examples we saw so far (the midwives, A.A., the hurdlers, etc.), the "legitimate" in "legitimate peripheral participation" seemed to be really present. One of the things which seemed missing from those examples was a sort of fakeness, an artificial situation created solely for the benefit of participants/learners.

Here, however, a lot of the discussion (like the passage highlighted) is about the adults and students being overly concerned about these issues around what participation ensures that the project is still "a product of youth's labor" instead of something thought up by adults. It just seems really artificial to me. Its almost like in their attempt to guarantee legitimate participation on the parts of the students, they go to such lengths to create this environment that it becomes clearly an artificial exercise and compromises the very goals they set out to promote end lack-of-eloquence

A consequence of several years in a assembly-line model classroom?

This paragraph has me rethinking the pros/cons of joint work. It does seem arguable that by" throwing them" into a context that most resembles what an adult activist group would look like/how it would run, TRUE is treating youths as full participants without the youths having to do any apprenticing. Looking at it like this makes the other two forms feel more like the youths are "learning what it would be like through supported simulation" - kind of a schooling of youth activism, where as in joint work they are "learning by being treated as an activist".

Might the type of guided participation lead to a different formation of 'youth as political' identity?

So being a part of "youth activism" is partially about or results in developing a particular identity? Maybe even an identity that will impact future identity development when they age out of the youth bracket?

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

I think the lack of wanting to make the youth members hold leadership roles, hinders their identity development. On the one side, I like that the environment is not altered to be youth-centered, but on the other I do not like the clear cut lines that is created when thinking about leadership roles. (By me, I am referring to how I have understood Kirshner's lens)

Is this more along the lines of what time of mutual involvement Kirshner was referring too? I feel like this is almost the perfect middle point in aiding in identity development of youth.

Sometimes I read this and think of mutual involvement, and other times I read it and think more of leadership from the adults. I also don't know if I agree of the term apprenticeship as it makes me think of lpp.

This includes mutual involvement from the individual and their social partner, but does this limit minority youth to only thinking they can be involved in youth activism at this level?

Because of this lack of real life observation of that workforce, correct?

This just came to my attention as a follow-up of a conversation on drugs, but... aren't teenagers third party observers of porn?

I wonder if there is any comparison with explicit account of the initially-involved kids performing roles different than the ones they did when they were involved the first time

I think this is exactly why young people (or whoever the learners are) need to participate and be given a platform in thinking about crafting and organizing education, learning, and curricula.... What might it look like for adults (or "the teachers") to practice intent participation?

I want to problematize the conviction with which Rogoff is citing this evidence. Is there any other literature or theories that nuance this causal inference between observing and learning?

I wouldn't dispute the fact that media and TV play a role in cultural production, reproducing hegemonic structures, etc. But does that mean observing in this way produces "highly effective" learning?

How much can this be intentional? How much does this fit into an understanding as "accidental learning?"

How about the opposite? We often here popular commentators on education mention things of the order that "schooling is killing creativity" or things of that nature.

Is there some basis for this? Is the assembly-line model of instruction curbing instincts that children demonstrate of careful observation of adult activities and a propensity to want to participate?

As in most of these examples, a high level of autonomy and initiative is demonstrated by students. How does one promote this kind of participation if that initiative is lacking?

Very important point! If we take the "intent participation" example of language acquisition, maybe there is an average of one adult per child in the home? If we take schools, what does that ratio drop to? What are the implications of that for creating opportunities for intent particpation?

Do these two sentences necessarily follow? Is schooling necessarily an environment which "limits children's opportunities to participate in the mature activities of their families and communities?" Isn't that one of the assumptions that this course is asking us to challenge?

Are U.S. children substituting that time for other times of activities in which they are active participants, or do they spend more time being casual observers? What are the consequences if the latter?

Interesting to think about later life outcomes for children who live in households where these behaviors exist for them to model versus households where they don't.

This reminds of LW's example using the meat cutters apprenticeship to which journeymen had assignments not relevant to working at a supermarket and the specialization of tasks they had once on the job.

Is Rogoff stating that the step to becoming full participants is to observe and eventually participate in the full range of activity (via intent participation)? Do children achieve a holistic view by becoming more deeply involved?

Important distinction between intent participation/assembly-line production as processes while formal/informal as places.

Is Rogoff saying then, that either process can happen in either place? Do we think that one place is better suited for a particular kind of process or vice versa? What does it all depend on?

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

I wonder was this a consequence of his design or did these learning theories underpin what he put together?

I wonder if this might be a generational thing. I recognize that Heath is contrasting the individual experience with someone visiting a museum with others but I'd like to focus on the individualistic interpretation. Meaning, before the internet and mass access to information, maybe this for exhibits to appeal to every single type of individual didn't exist. On the one hand, accessibility is important and on the other, what does art lose by having to be accessed by/appeal to a person with no knowledge of art and an expert at the same time? How does this relate to learning? Accessibility is a huge factor in education broadly speaking.

...but lonely visits to a museum are rare. How did this culture of quiet, monastic contemplation arise in museums?

How is the context that the display is in perhaps affecting this kind of behavior? Are there roles that people take on as "museum goers" which pose a challenge for this exhibition? For instance, removing part of the installation from the wall might break from established norms about how one should behave in such a setting. How do you deal with this without, at the same time, specifically prompting the behavior?

What prompted the encouragement in some scenarios and not in others? Is there something to be learned from instances where participant exploration was completely organic and instances where they needed facilitators?

LPP connection. In LPP is there a specific moment of motivation and thus participation?

I'm curious what these authors would say about Allen's discussion of "museum fatigue" and cognitive overload

Interested in doing this for what purpose? Is it to see how the viewer will change their participation? Is it to see the difference in participation among object that do not encompass this augmented fashion?

Is the underlying premise for crafting participation about creating a space for curiosity?

Important point. However, I wonder what denotes someone as an "active" spectator...

I find this so interesting. Has there been this increase because of new technology that allows for it? (E.g. Video). Maybe the desire was there before (Thinking of installments in cities all over the world where artists sit or have people sit to be watched). What else might have caused this shift besides technical availability?

but what will happen if they are by themselves? Would they have learned the same things?

Interesting. So not just looking at how people respond to the art, how their interactions with others might affect that response. I wonder how often people going alone rely on the reactions of strangers to guide their experience?

So, there is a lack of research on interaction with artifacts? Is that what is being said here?

How has the guided audio tour changed this experience? Do users follow a particular trajectory? Does this enhance or interrupt the experience?

I wonder how the internet and social media have affected this relationship as art can be seen "out of context" intended by the artist. How does where we see art affect how we experience it?

what versions of "fatigue" do we see in other learning settings (in or out of school)?

really important. This also happens to some degree in universities (course evaluations, surveys, etc) -- what about other school settings? I think this is particularly important for practitioners to keep in mind. Often we think it's outside of our role to conduct research while simultaneously teaching but sometimes it might be necessary.

using curiosity as a strategy to keep learners hooked is interesting - don't we see this outside of museum settings, too? I feel like we saw this in the Moll piece as well -- students were encouraged to pursue projects based on their own interests.

But this is not synonymous with higher attainment of the learning goals of the exhibit itself. How did those compare?

Telling here is the assumption that a museum visit will necessarily last longer than 30 minutes. Why is that so? How would museum visits change if very short, targeted visits were encouraged/the norm?

I'm curious if there is a way to broaden the notions of narrative to be effective in "phenomenon-based" exhibits in science museums? I feel like narrative based learning can extend much further than just basic storytelling.... Is that what the author is saying though?

Is that true when they are not aware of receiving the information? Reasing implies it is, but I still think it is not so clear

Why are all these needed? What makes us think learners must be "held accountable" to learn?

Is this a kind of FoK?

And then the question is on the importance of those facts or inferences, in order to decide if and how to teach/show/facilitate them

I don't think Allen is just talking about physical resources as affordances, but there aren't other examples. Could we think of "ease of access" or "user-friendliness" as affordances?

Do people agree/disagree with Allen here? Do students enter the classroom thinking, "Hey, this might be so boring, but if I stick it out I know there are rewards/benefits on the other side."?

Okay, first sentence so it may be premature but I am thinking that another way to state this dilemma is: What happens when CoP collide? And how do we support more than one CoP with the same physical resources?

this passage reminds me of "It directs our attention towards the idea of an ‘active spectator’ who constitutes the sense and significance of objects and artifacts." from crafting participation piece. So is the use of a hands on approach the same as an active spectator in the Heath piece?

so as an out of school occurrence, is it necessary to have a set curriculum or is it sufficient to have students explore and create their own unique understandings of what they are encountering?

Is there possibly a perverse effect to this "fund of knowledge"?

The examples cited mention how instrumental it is in helping the family navigate social services and how to stay afloat. But what if the wisdom in the "fund of knowledge" also contains advice and suggestions which, for better or for worse, prevents them from improving their circumstances. In a community like this, how do you police against bad advice, or incorporate knowledge from outsiders?

From the preceeding paragraph, the authors explicitly state that they chose this setting because it exhibited specific social and cultural characteristics. Is it valid to then, based on these observations, to support a conclusion pertaining to "all forms of human activity?"

How are you defining culture? Do people not bring in their own individualistic styles in a community, that are influenced from somewhere (i.e. culture)?

Are these mostly reproduced through social interaction, through the social network?

Thinking as distributed. When I think about what that means for a classroom I immediately go to the understanding that learning happens through dialogue and interaction (between people, artifacts and the environment). This means a focus on those interactions is necessary to see/develop classroom thinking. How does that fit into a theory of communities of practice and LPP?

I think this is really interesting, the kinds of things we might do to maintain our social relations and in turn our FoK. How much of this is a conscious effort beyond just "keeping in touch"?

I heard once about a study of why low-income families grow large in numbers and one of the reasons was this kind of group-strength. Has somebody else heard abut that kind of studies?

Why the quotation marks? Is it because of the band gigs in Mexico? If so, the author's understanding of the whole issue of the band is very limited

it is interesting that the acquired knowledge is only useful for recreational activity and not for assisting the family out of poverty. How could the children's fund of knowledge benefitted from the mistakes of their parents?

Coach J is the gate keeper, the mentor, who needs to provide the resources for a student to engage in building the identity of a track athlete. Therefore, he is the identity gate keeper. Why, therefore, examine this through the lens of resources instead of merely habitus or "cultural toolkit?"

I am a little confused about this statement; it feels incomplete. He says learning is a part of identity and that identity is a product of learning. I feel like there are other things that produce identity (and if we pull in LW and Holland of course there are - culture, society, context, LPP, etc). Yet here they leave those out.

This answered some of my questions from the previous two chapters on how and by who is identity constructed. However I still question if there are any conflicts between being within a figured world and how others socially construct and position ones's identity.

Is this the first mention of motivation in relation to learning?

Are there other kinds of resources? And, if so, any of those apply to this situation?

Is therefore learning somehow a subset of identity?

Andrew's identity did not contain Alcoholic in the AA terms yet. Therefore he was not engaged in the figured world of AA. Is this the only way one can be considered a part of a figured world in this analysis?

How is this different from and/or the same as other socio-historical. cultural forces that drive the reproduction of this figured world of being an AA alchoholic? What about other figured worlds? Is this conscious social step, prescribed in literature that all must read and listen to in order to be part of AA figured world, truly indicative of the forces of reproduction behind other figured worlds?

I have to admit, like every single reading that precedes this, our analysis begins when the individual is already in the community. When we say "they have come to understand that 'alcohol is controlling their lives'", there seems to be a lot of learning that has already happened. Similarly, all the other cases we have addressed study how the individual interacts in the community of practice, but say nothing about how they got there. To me, that is a fundamental question which we have so far not really devoted any attention to.

So did the AA steps get developed from the comparison of other people?

Why does it need to be that way? Why label something that is unnecessary, especially when it will not produce positive result for the individual's identity?

Throughout this chapter I couldn't help but feel a bit uncomfortable by all of the talk of transformation. AA clearly does good and important things in the world, but in order to benefit from it, the participant needs to "radically reinterpret" him/herself. Alcoholism is definitely deviant and harmful behavior, but I also wonder how our discussion would change if we replaced AA with a cult (or with any kind of radical group) that requires reinterpretation and transformation as the basis of membership.

How can one prevent an interpretation of a behavior or an identity from being assimilated into a figured world. Is the association with a figured world only through one's recognition and acceptance? That gives membership to a figured would a level of agency that I didn't expect.

Can AA as an institution be viewed as implementing a a teaching curriculum to newcomers in AA? But then what is the role of a learning curriculum in AA's community of practice?

Or am I totally looking at this weirdly?

Entering into the AA figured world as a "non drinking alcoholic" must be an intentional choice.

I'm curious though what the authors would say about close family and friends of "non drinking alcoholics" - do you need to form an identity as such to enter (struggling with word choice here) a specific figured world?

I don't understand this - labeled by others after acting "inappropriately" AFTER drinking? I feel like the label is more contingent on the act or habit of drinking, rather than only after... Guess this speaks to the disagreements and lack of a clear definition of alcoholism

I'm curious about the role of institutions in figured worlds and identity formation - I wish they could explore this further

Who defines these criteria?

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?

What happens when a person is forced into a figured world they do not want to be in...a Holocaust victim, a prisoner? Does their identity reflect their reality, thier former lives, or their aspirations?

Andrew seems conflicted by his figured worlds. Though he acknowledges his alcoholism it is not how he identifies. For Hank, AA became a surrogate family (by way of his descri[tions of "Who am I?"). Andrew, though lonely, does not allow AA to serve that purpose for him. Is it a self fulfilling prophecy of lonliness that he is holding on to? An identity he wants to cling to?

"figured worlds" definition. This definition leads me to ask where the foundational "specific set of forces," come from. I would assume they are cultural forces (re)produced by cultural interactions throughout and within different figured worlds. This is indicated in the next sentence by the word "sociohistoric."

I read this and I think, "what came first the chicken or the egg?"

Can you have worlds if you don't have words to define them? Can anyone have an identity if we have no words to use to describe our identities?

This section on power and privilege is a bit confusing. And how it relates to Bourdieu's concept of fields.

Cultural artifacts don't need to be material - pronouns as artifacts (example of ta/you). I'm thinking more about pronouns as artifacts, I'm curious what the authors would have to say about communities creating their own gender neutral pronouns in response to the gender binary (examples: ne, ve, ze, xe). Imagining and creating artifacts into being, learned within social interaction

Can someone give me an example of an artifact being a tool of liberation?

Can you live any other way?

How did she "become inclined" one way or another? Again, the discussion seems to center around an identity that is or isn't assumed, but there is little discussion about why it is or isn't - which seems to be the most interesting/important part! How did she "learn" to distaste socialites?

I think she uses and reacts the situation differently depending on the context she is in. When she wants to still have her freedom she will act in ways that show she is not too interested, but when she wants to stop someone from talking to her, she will act the opposite. She has learned how to use her relationship to her advantage...maybe?

Do they do this because they are better at romance than school? Do they make this switch to feel fulfilled?

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.

Can someone give me an example of an artifact being a tool of liberation?

Learning about how to 'use' the shop is required then, not so much novice-friendly. Out-of-school situation-specific?

Learning about how to 'use' the shop is required then, not so much novice-friendly. Out-of-school situation-specific?

Similar to the comment below, what is apprenticeship as an educational phenomena? Why is it different than what most of us understand apprenticeship as? I agree that it this term has taken on too many meanings in educational literature.

"Beyond the context of pedagogical structuring" Are the authors claiming that pedagogy is exclusive to schools? I'm curious if pedagogy can be conceptualized and applied in out-of-school contexts as well. I feel like pedagogy is a really broad, and potentially radical concept to be only assigned to schools. Perhaps they aren't saying this though?

And when participation in the community is not valued by the learner? Schooling would look a lot different (and I'd argue it does look a lot different) if it were restricted to those legitimately invested in the endeavor.

This is just one dimension in which the communities which exhibit legitimate peripheral participation are wildly different from one another. What are the implications of this for "designers" like ourselves? It is also noteworthy to consider the sharp contrast between the difference in cycles established by these communities with the incredibly uniform "cycles" that we have settled upon in traditional schooling.