Tuesday, February 10, 2015

Desettling Expectations

Luis Briseno

Bang, M., Warren, B., Rosebery, A. S., & Medin, D. (2012). Desettling expectations in science education. Human Development55, 302-318.
Penuel & Fishman (2011) advance the conversation of what is needed know that we have NGSS standards to guide the way for teaching and learning.  They highlight the need for alignment among standards, curriculums, and assessments, as well as, focuses on making curriculum meaningful for students for an effective implementation of standards, identity and experiences of science shape current and future selves in the STEM field. A great reminder to researchers is to be mindful of “conditions in education that are presumed in effectiveness studies themselves help to reproduce inequity, by requiring access to resources or support that are not achieveable in many settings, especially lower-SES school setting.” In other words, policy, limitations, selection criteria act as containers and bound the kind of knowledge production that can be achieved and act as reinforces of borders. The authors remind us to ask: “what works when, for whom, and under what conditions.” If NGSS is meant to inform state and local science education policy, curriculum development, and science teaching  - does this policy serve ALL students? The idea of diversity does not simply refers to demographics but… “diversity encompasses the ideas, experiences, and histories that enliven and enrich fixed view of what science learning can and should be?” come from a privilege perspective of what cultural diversity.  I would like to explore this further, as Babbha (?) emphasizes the distinction between diversity and differences; where diversity attends to acknowledging variation among a community – differences works to highlight the historical and political power among communities (demographics). Demographics highlights an ability to examine differences from a deeper critical view of variation inter communities; ie class, gender, socio-economic status. 
One of the reasons why I brought Penuel & Fishman (2011) into the discussion is because it attempts to highlight the direction of what should and can be done – there is separation between theory and practice. How does this actually look like in a classroom? Megan and colleauges (2013) provide an example of how to – with an expansive was of knowing – breaking dichotomies up/down and left/right ( or inward to outward and vice-versa). I welcome pushback as I am attempting to make sense of this myself. :)
Bang and colleagues (2013) discuss how teachers can “create robust, meaningful forms of science education” to work against maintaining or recreating borders. The authors “argue for the importance in fostering a more transformative science education experience for nondominant youth, one that can generate new forms of knowledge, new modes of engagement, and new networks of responsibility.” The author examines science learning episodes, making meaning of water, the classroom’s culture of learning works to form understanding stemming from different forms of cultural representations and recognizing deep tensions between them. Engaging in such expansive learning “they mapped a considerably more complex, multivoiced network of locally and globally consequential relationships involving movement in and across history and place of water, land, people, and practices of many kinds at varied scales” (Bang, 2013). In doing so, navigating among and across one another’s speech spheres they have “blurred settle relations that are imposed by curricula between nature and culture” (Bang, 2013). This new network of discourse creates a more comprehensible and heterogeneous way to examine the world around us, making a crossing from a single story to a multivoiced matrix.
The question that I would like to work towards answering is/are: whom is responsible for PD for teachers with NGSS standards? I wonder if NGSS were formed from a co-collaboration among respected researchers and teachers and curriculum developers… has a systems level analysis examine the level of alignment of standards, curriculums, and assessments been done to investigate contradictions which yield formation of new knowledge? Or was it a rebirth of new standards?
When we, research community, claim to serve ALL to we mean to say a subset of a community that  was bounded by – policy, funding, selection criteria… What unintended consequences can arise from claiming to serve ALL?
These are some of the things that I wonder about. 

Science-related Identity Development

Jeanne Chowning


Carlone, H., Scott, C. M., & Lowder, C. (2014). Becoming (less) scientific: A longitudinal study of students' identity work from elementary to middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching51(7), 836-869.
This paper summarizes findings from a longitudinal case study focused on the development of science-related identities of three science students. The research, which utilized data mostly from classroom observations and interviews, traced the trajectory of the students from their fourth through sixth grade science classes.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The research questions explored were:
1) What is the nature of the available and celebrated subject position(s) in each year of school science?
2) How did the students’ consistent identity work in each year of school science position them in relation to the celebrated subject position(s) in each year of school science? (p. 841)
Additionally, the researchers examined how race, class, and gender impacted students’ identity development and positioning in science classrooms. Drawing on social practice theory in general, and the construct of ‘figured worlds’ in particular, the researchers examined the ways students described themselves (or performed), and the how the meanings of their identity work was influenced by the context of particular classroom cultures. 
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
The authors relied heavily on ‘figured worlds’ in describing the social contexts they examined, defining them as “sociohistoric, collective ‘realms of interpretation’ that provide the ‘contexts of meaning for actions, cultural productions, performances, disputes, for the understandings that people come to make of themselves, and for the capabilities that people develop to direct their own behavior in these worlds’ (p. 838, citing Holland, Lachicotte, Skinner & Cain, 1998, p. 60).  Seeing students as positioned in various figured worlds helped the authors explore the tension between structure (how a conceptual figured world, with its normative guidelines, helps shape interactions and beliefs) and agency (how individuals can define themselves in relation to, and even push back on the strictures of the ‘world’.
In addition to exploring figured worlds that students inhabited, the researchers also defined the “celebrated subject positions” in each of the classrooms they observed.  Using a framework from Duschl and Kelly (2002), they focused on patters of epistemic practices, communicative practices, and investigative practices to reveal:
  • What counts as science in a setting?
  • What counts as being a ‘good’ science participant?
  • What are the obligations of positioning oneself as aligned with/able to fill the celebrated subject positions? 
  • What are the relevant figured worlds that shape what counts? (p. 842)
 FINDINGS
In 4th grade, “students’ identity work was an important resource leveraged to align oneself with celebrated subject positions. Being scientific, being a good class member, and being “me” were mutually reinforcing performances” (p. 847). Figured worlds that they identified in the 4th grade class included “reform-based science”, “family”, and “childhood.” By contrast, the students’ experiences in 6th grade took place within figured worlds of “traditional school science”, “authoritative paternalism/hegemonic masculinity” “jock masculinity”, and “adolescence.” Within this class, the celebrated subject position was the “perfect performer.” The researchers examined how issues of race, class, and gender figured into the construction of identity for the students they studied. It might be tempting to invoke a simple narrative of “reform-minded” versus “traditional” teacher in this analysis. However, the researchers take pains to note that they did not wish to entirely put the blame on the 6th grade teacher for the challenges in the way students positioned themselves – they also identified the larger social/structural forces at play that perpetuate the systems observed (such as budget cuts, parental pressures, and inclusion of large number of students with special needs).
IMPORTANT POINT
In considering scientific identity development in classrooms, the nexus of “celebrated subject positions” and “figured worlds” can either reinforce or conflict with students’ own developing conceptions of themselves: “In fourth grade, all students benefited greatly from the fact that their social identity work was leveraged in service of learning and doing robust school science.  In other words, what counted as “being scientific” was tightly interwoven with what it meant to be [particular students]. This meant that their identity work was much less problematic, contentious, or threatening. (p. 859). In contrast, by the 6th grade, the celebrated subject position was not aligned with scientific practices, and thus students were not held accountable to “being scientific.”
QUESTIONS
1) How would you describe the “figured worlds” of the science classrooms you experienced?  What role did they play in reinforcing or contradicting your own identity work? 
2) In their conclusion, the researchers ask the following question that emphasizes the challenges inherent to maintaining science-related interests/identity between elementary and middle school:
School science is subject to strong institutional and cultural narratives of what counts as legitimate science, is often configured too narrowly, and leaves little room to celebrate and productively leverage different kinds of students’ science-related interests and identity work. However, the fourth grade science case points to the promise of disrupting those dominant narratives. The question remains: Is it possible to re-figure a middle school science classroom in similarly accessible ways when structures of race, class, and gender become increasingly salient in the social lives of adolescents and the figured worlds of traditional schooling and school science? How can we begin to imagine such as space? (p. 865)
Middle school, with its increasing focus on disciplinary specialization, provides particular challenges to creating spaces for supporting scientific identity development. Furthermore, middle school is a time where identity becomes a highly charged aspect of adolescent existence. What kinds of structural changes will be necessary to support students in aligning their identities with scientific ones in middle school and beyond?
3) The researchers call out the emphasis on engaging students in science and engineering practices in the NGSS as “productive for designing and evaluating equitable classrooms” (p. 865).  How will specific science and engineering practices need to be taken up in classrooms in order to align student’s self-conceptions with scientific identity?  Are there other elements of NGSS that bear on the question of science-related identity development?

Learning science in informal environments



Sukh Makhnoon

National Research Council. (2009). Theoretical perspectives, Conclusions and recommendations. In Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A.W. & Feder, M.A. (Eds.), Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits (pp. 27-53, 291-314). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 
Recently, my public health students were assigned to take a stance on: whether we should spend more money on HIV vaccine research or spend it on educating people about HIV prevention methods instead? Unsurprisingly, most of them favored education. As someone in public health, teaching in informal environments has always been one of our sharpest tools. We teach people to wash hands, to cover their coughs, to vaccinate, and the list goes on. Most of this education is meant to benefit the people around you rather than yourself. And as a result, people continue to not listen to us and we continue to train more public health professionals!
As a public health geneticist, I can safely say that, when a genetic counselor talks to people about the anomalies in their genes, people tend to listen. This depicts the importance of “learner’s prior knowledge, interest, and identity in learning in informal environments” as identified in conclusion 5 of the ‘Learning Science in Informal Environments: people, places and pursuits’ (NRC, 2009).
This high-stake learning environment demands that you understand complex science, and make important personal decisions based on your learning. This learning may be in complicated by your cultural lack of understanding about genetics (NRC Conclusion 4, pg 296) or you may need to unlearn things you read on Facebook (NRC Conclusion 7, pg 299).
“Emotions associated with interest are a major factor in thinking and learning” (pg 58). When stakes are high (such as in medical decision making), what can teachers or learners do to maximize proper learning, what information is retained, how long it is remembered, and how can learners use the information for wise decision making?


   

What professional development strategies are needed for successful implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards?

What professional development strategies are needed for successful implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards?

Reiser, B. (2013). What professional development strategies are needed for successful implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards? Education Testing Service.


Kirsten Rooks

No unread replies.No replies.
Though there are many similarities between the NGSS and previous science standards and/or benchmarks, the differences between them indicate a significant and fundamental change in the way that students are going to learn science, which will require a significant shift in the science teaching practices, which will, in turn, require a a significant “change in (teachers’) beliefs, attitudes, and understanding that underlie these practices.” (Reiser, 2)  
Framework for K-12 Science Education sums up the “to do” list required of teachers to properly implement NGSS. “Teachers at all levels must understand the scientific and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas; how students learn them; and the range of instructional strategies that can support their learning. Furthermore, teachers need to learn how to use student-developed models, classroom discourse, and other formative assessment approaches to gauge student thinking and design further instruction based on it.” (Framework, 256)
Reiser breaks these tasks down into three significant shifts in the ways teachers teach science. After reviewing some of the key research-based findings about what constitutes effective professional development, he offers three general recommendations to guide the professional development changes that will be required to effectively implement the NGSS-based reforms. 
  • Teaching shift 1: The goal of instruction needs to shift from facts to explaining phenomena.The goal of science education is changing from students building a body of fact-based knowledge to students building knowledge from evidence to figure out “scientific ideas that explain how and why phenomena occur.” (p 3) This type of knowledge building involves an cyclic process of focusing on a broad phenomenon that requires explanation. To answer these broad questions, students must carry out investigations, the results of which guide them to create explanatory models, which will ultimately offer an explanation for the original phenomenon. 
  • Teaching shift 2: Inquiry is not a separate activity - all science learning should involve engaging in practices to build and use knowledge. With the NGSS, scientific practices are the means by which students make sense of phenomena rather than a mere opportunity to do “hands-on-science.” These practices drive the cyclic process above. They are also wedded to students working collaboratively and engaging in scientific discourse. These two elements are not merely classroom management techniques designed to help engage all students, but they are necessary for students to engage in evidence-backed argumentation and explanatory modeling that ultimately guide students’ knowledge building. 
  • Teaching shift 3: Teaching involves building a coherent storyline across time. To effectively guide students as they build knowledge through these NGSS practices, teachers will be required to know how to “introduce phenomena that can raise questions, uncover problems with existing explanations students may have, and help tease apart competing explanations through argument.” (p 9)
Reiser then highlights four research-based findings about what makes effective professional development. 
  • PD should be embedded in subject matter. PD that focuses on generic pedagogical topics such as classroom management or employing higher order thinking skills will not be nearly as effective as PD that is built around actual NGSS practices. 
  • PD needs to involve active learning. Rather than passively take in information, teachers need to actively analyze scenarios and apply the strategies to their own teaching situations. The initial PD must be extensive and intensive with follow-up PD spread out over a year. 
  • PD needs to be connected to teachers’ own practices. Teachers need to be able to apply and reflect on what they learn to their own classrooms. This is more effective is done collaboratively.
  • PD needs to be part of a coherent system of support. In order to implement the reform completely, the PD needs to focus on creating coherence between the teacher’s beliefs and the goal of learning of NGSS as well as alignment of the changed standards to assessments and curricular materials. 
From the warp of required teaching shifts and the weft of effective professional development practices, Reiser weaves three general recommendations for Professional Development for NGSS. 
  • Structure teacher sensemaking around rich images of classroom enactment. Teachers need to analyze and deconstruct real or re-enacted examples of NGSS teaching practices and then discuss and plan how to carry out these practices in their own classes. He suggests the use of video cases.
  • Structure teachers’ work to be collaborative efforts to apply NGSS to their own classrooms.  In the same way the student collaboration is necessary to fully engage in active sensemaking, teacher collaboration is necessary to fully analyze and make sense of pedagogical practices required for NGSS reforms. The teachers are not trying to copy the examples that they see, they are trying to make sense of the processes in order to incorporate them into their own teaching.
  • Capitalize on cyber-enabled environments. Technology, such as video enactments ofor analysis, videoed classes for reflection and discussion, digital communication, and on-line courses, if created carefully, can be very effective to carry out PD at scale.
Key Points: Despite having spent many years and thousands of person-hours researching for and writing the Framework and the NGSS, those first steps were only the proverbial tip of the iceberg compared to the task of properly training the teachers who are now poised to implement this reform. The NGSS-based reform requires a significant and fundamental change in the way teachers understand and implement science teaching. We will need new and substantial professional development in order to help train current and pre-service science teacher to effectively implement NGSS.
Question: Which aspects of NGSS pedagogical practices do you think is the most difficult to convey through PD? Which aspect(s) do you think are the most important?

Can the Next Generation Science Standards "permeate" the education system?

Michelle Salgado

“Standards provide a vision for teaching and learning, but the vision cannot be realized unless the standards permeate the education system and guide curriculum, instruction, teacher preparation, and professional development (p. 241).”

The Next Generation Science Standards do not provide the practices & pedagogy behind this vision and this may be problematic for initial implementation purposes. Districts and Educational Service Districts need to seriously consider the implications for teaching and learning within the science discipline if teachers and students are not supported through the process of enacting the standards. Traditional  “spray and pray” professional development classes will not support teachers as they navigate a shift in their practice.  Districts and professional development providers need to rethink how to create professional development models that will support sustainability over time as well as depth changes in pedagogy and a shift in reform ownership from external (reformers) to internal (teachers) owners (Coburn, 2003).
Teacher autonomy will be an interesting tension that may emerge within schools and districts as a result of implementing NGSS because of the increased need for student sense-making discourse to demonstrate a proficiency of the performance expectations. In my experience, sense-making discourse relies heavily on responsive teaching which in turn relies on the teacher’s ability to plan instruction and questioning techniques specific to the elicited student ideas that emerge lesson after lesson.
Teachers will need the autonomy to move away from scripted lesson plans and science “investigations” that do not allow students to pose their own questions and instead the sequencing of curriculum should be focused on student partial understandings and progressive growth of the complexity of evidence backed explanations. The “educational system” including district coaches and science personnel as well as administration needs to understand that for many educators this is a new kind of teaching and learning and it should be a PROCESS THAT TAKES TIME!  Districts and ESDs will need to carefully choose the professional development models that will support teachers throughout the school year, not just occurring in September and June.
State and district policies will need to be mindful of the involved variables of responsive science teaching and look for ways to view and support this shift in practice as both a financial and economic investment into the future.  I argue that curriculum development work and assessments should occur on a local scale in partnership with teachers and districts. If curriculum is responsive and assessments are created with the local student population in mind then this may reduce bias related to language, gender, status, and ethnic diversities.
If curriculum developers, professional development instructors, and/or university partnerships work alongside teachers and district science personnel to create local and responsive curriculum then the transfer of ownership within schools will grow and increase the quality of implementation of the NGSS framework dimensions (Disciplinary Core Ideas, Science and Engineering Practices, and Crosscutting Concepts) and this knowledge will move to be self-generating throughout the system and renewed at the beginning of each school year.
If teachers are not given the opportunity to create curriculum or assessments and districts care about NGSS implementation, then teachers should be given sufficient planning time during the course of their work day and paid for out of work planning time in order to revise the curriculum to meet the diverse needs of their students.
 This planning time should not, in my view, occur in isolation. Given the complexity of the new standards and intricacies of the framework dimensions, teachers will need to work both on grade level planning teams and meet in cross-grade level planning periods with support from coaches and job embedded professional development personnel. In working with collaborative teams, new educational norms will begin to take hold, as all parties involved will engage in continued opportunities to learn within these supportive learning communities. Thinking even further, supportive administrators will need to consider their role as instructional leaders and create building-wide policies that support teacher and student learning. This includes the creation of the daily schedule, providing quality opportunities for teacher collaboration and professional development, and transforming staff meetings into places for learning not announcements.
It is my belief that students begin their first days of kindergarten knowing how to ask scientific questions, draw pictures (models) of events and phenomena they encounter, and know how to engage in dialogue about their ideas. Our job is to continue to support those skills and pre-existing knowledge and experiences by providing their teachers with the necessary partnerships and materials in the form of skill building, job embedded professional development that is ongoing and responsive, appropriate curriculum, and the autonomy to make sound instructional decisions. Implementation of these standards will be a collective effort by all parties involved with everyone holding a share of the responsibility.
Should teachers be involved in partnerships to create science curriculum that supports their implementation of NGSS? Why or why not?
 How do you create a curriculum that balances the learning of both the science and engineering practices? Can you have a unit with a focus on both science and engineering? Or would it be better to focus on these pieces separately?
How do you support teachers in their learning of specific discourse moves that supports students’ changes in thinking over time?

“The Tailored Practice of Hobbies and its Implication for the Design of Interest-Driven Learning Environments.”

Kristen Bergsman
“The Tailored Practice of Hobbies and its Implication for the Design of Interest-Driven Learning Environments.” F.S. Azevedo. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22 (3), 462-510.
My house is a museum featuring artifacts from my husband’s hobbies, past and present. I have never met someone who follows an interest with such passion that it flares hot and burns itself out. Then he’s off again, pursuing his next interest with that same energy and enthusiasm. The trumpet was like that. He immersed himself in the world of “trumpet.” He took lessons. He bought multiple instruments and an entire lot of mutes on eBay. He listened exclusively to CDs of famous trumpet performers. He played trumpet, listened trumpet, read trumpet, talked trumpet. And then, he was off to the next pursuit. Azevedo would call these bursts of intense focus “short-term pursuits.” But my husband certainly has some hobbies that are long lasting investments, “long-term pursuits” that span years or decades, like his sustained study of poker and motorcycle maintenance.
I’ve wondered how a teacher could best capture and capitalize on students’ varied interests and hobbies. The knitter. The tinkerer. The dog trainer. The Lego collector. As a science curriculum designer, I’ve tried integrating various strategies in lesson plans aimed at helping teacher elicit and connect to students’ interests.
The NRC Framework for K-12 Science Education calls for science and engineering for all students; its equity and diversity approaches include a specific focus on “building on prior interest and identity” (NRCFramework, p.286). Science and engineering instruction that connects to students’ personal interests—including hobbies—is authentic and inclusive. But how do instructional designers create interest-driven curricula? How do teachers design interest-driven classroom environments?
In his four year ethnographic study of the hobbyists pursuing amateur astronomy, Azevedo’s goal was to “sharpen current conceptulatizations of interests and engaged participation” (Azevedo, p.X). Through his ethnographic studies—embedded in the world of amateur astronomy societies—and his survey and synthesis of potentially relevant theories, Azevedo presents his own Lines of Practice Theory (p. 27). He presents a series of “lessons and issues for instructional design” developed from this theoretical perspective. These are arranged around the following themes: 
  1. Topic/Domain-Centered Activities
  2. Flailing Interests: Issues of Dynamics in Interest-Based Participation
  3. Boundaries and Ends of Interest-Driven Practice
  4. Material Infrastructures
  5. Practicing Across Several Sites and Communities
  6. Structuring Resources
  7. Collective Supports for Participation in Preference Aligned Ways

Summary
1.     Critical Reflection or Important Point
In Azevedo’s Lines of Practice Theory, a line of practice is defined as “a specific subset of a person’s preferences (in and beyond the hobby practice) attuned to a subset of conditions of practice in his or her life” (p. 27). They are “long-term structures with short- and long-term consequences for how one participates in a practice of interest” (p. 27).
2.     One Substantive Discussion Question Brought Up by the Reading
Think of a time that you’ve been witness to (or personally experienced) interest-driven teaching or learning. What made this learning experience successful? What could have been done differently to better support learning? In your conversations, link back to Azevedo’s Lines of Practice Theory and his in-depth study of hobbyists pursuing amateur astronomy.

Learning Across Settings


Luis Briseno

Penuel, W. R., Lee, T. R., & Bevan, B. (2014). Designing and building infrastructures to supportequitable STEM learning across settings. Research+Practice Collaboratory Research Synthesis.

PURPOSE
The objective of the paper is to present a conceptual framework to support learning across settings in the domain of STEM.
TOPIC
The authors discuss design principles to consider when organizing learning opportunities to connect people to practice multiple settings. Attending to equity and diversity as the central driver to transform STEM education and broadening participation in STEM.
MAIN IDEA/ARGUMENT
The Importance of Supporting STEM learning Across Settings
The authors discuss the importance of “mentors, who can help a person navigate different institutional settings and structures, and developing a strong identification with disciplinary practices or fields, which entail positioning oneself and being positioned as a future scientist or engineering” (p.2). The paper argues that all designed research aims for some kind of transfer – the process of transfer is not one-way,and a key aim is to foster connections among people, settings, and practices. This is essential to foster connections – “these connections may also help expand learner’s agency to imagine and co-create new possible futures for themselves and for society.” How can agency be expanded when students’ don’t have trusting relationships with role models (there aren’t role models like them?) 
“Learners play an active role in making these connections, though they also can benefit from guidance and structured opportunities to make sense of how different activities relate to one another, and how particular activities in one setting prepare them for participation in another (p.2) To me this closely ties with Bahktin’s work which states “genres of speech” – that each area attends to its own structure and purpose. Meaning that our “funds of knowledge” can be talked about as “genres of speech” and moving across contexts speaks to Bahktin’s framework stating that individuals cannot be expected to participate in another’s speech genre without guidance, or mentors.
STEM Learning as Life-Long, Life-Wide, and Life-Deep 
Attends to formal and informal infrastructures… Life-long - “Learning refers to the ways in which the settings and opportunities that people experience in their life change over their lifespan. ”Life-wide “ highlights the ways that learning is a cross-setting phenomenon at every point in a person’s life.” Life-deep –“values influence the ways in which learning resources in one setting may be recruited in another.” 
“Any given setting sits at an intersection of different value systems defined in part by the values that participants bring from other settings.” (p. 3). I find this point to be essential to the point that designing learning across settings – especially when if the underpinning is made that transfer is no only one way. The authors talk about how “one person’s interest in a given subject matter may manifest itself quite differently than another”. To me this seems to suggest that there are multiple zpd’s that need to be attended to in learning environment. Hence funds of knowledge and prior knowledge and repertoires of practice as useful frameworks to keep in mind when design a learning environment. Particularly, when attempting to design for learning across contexts because one mediating goal may not be sufficient to reach learners.
The authors move on to discuss about the affordance and constraints of informal learning settings, digital badges - online networks provide teachers with the opportunity to gauge a learner’s development. Allowing teachers to check in on their process, comment, and give encouragement. The author’s also attend to policy barriers and talk about the affordances and constraints of evaluation and assessment systems.
What I find particularly interesting is from whose infrastructure knowledge base of “value” are design experience working from. To what extent do they consider equity and diversity in their design? If individuals’ cultural pathway provides them with a matrix of possibilities to work from and influence where they place their value, how will the nature of the design impact or create or recreate boundaries? I ask this because addressing equity and diversity in a learning setting is talked about, but action to broaden the breath of its reach is bordered. At times a subgroup of the community benefits from research and others are left aside. More tools or resources are created, but whom do they serve and for what purpose?

FRAMEWORK
To build infrastructures to support leaning across settings.. .  p 2 
DISCUSSION
For whom and for what purpose is our work directed towards? How do we attend to equity and diversity in our own practices? 

Connected Learning: An Agenda for Research and Design


Christie Barchenger

Ito, Mizuko, Kris Gutiérrez, Sonia Livingstone, Bill Penuel, Jean Rhodes, Katie Salen, Juliet Schor, Julian Sefton-Green, S. Craig Watkins. 2013. Irving, CA: Digital Media and Learning Research Hub.

"For today's youth, life without the Internet or cell phones is already unimaginable" (p. 41).
     Modern technology, with its potential for connecting people and bringing information to our fingertips, is omnipresent in nearly every sector of U.S. society.  Some have hailed the Internet and other 'recent' technology as a great equalizer of sorts, as advancements that will inherently narrow the gaps in access to information and opportunity that exist in our stratified society. Connected Learning argues otherwise, explaining that many conventiona, individual outcome-focused teaching methods, whether they use technology or not, reinforce systems of power, and that without an explicit focus on equity, leveraging modern technology in educational settings even further strengthens existing privilege and oppression. They put forward 'connected learning' an approach that can help leverage modern technology and that isspecifically focused on community building and equity.
    In the authors' words:
 " [Connected learning] advocates for broadened access to learning that is socially embedded, interest-driven, and oriented toward educational, economic, or political opportunity. Connected learning is realized when a young person is able to pursue a personal interest or passion with the support of friends and caring adults, and is in turn able to link this learning and interest to academic achievement, career success or civic engagement. This model is based on evidence that the most resilient, adaptive, and effective learning involves individual interest as well as social support to overcome adversity and provide recognition." (p.1)
    Connected learning is about building communities and "collective capacities" rather than on individual outcomes. This is an important distinction, the authors argue, because a lack of focus on collective outcomes tends to lead to educational approaches which "reinforce the advantage that  privileged already have" rather than disrupting systems of power and privilege by building capacity and capital within communities that include students from non-dominant culture backgrounds (p.8).
    By linking students' interests with in-person or virtual peer communities which have a shared purpose and can relate to academic, civic, and/or career goals, educators can support students in leveraging their current interests in a way that broadens and deepens the engagement a student has with an increasingly diverse set of topics and skills.
    For example, a middle school student, Clarissa, who is an aspiring writer, became involved in her cousin's Minecraft community and, through the support of a teacher, started a Minecraft club, began writing and staging virtual plays within the Minecraft world, shared her writing in academic classes, and pursued further support in a summer writing camp. In another case study, the Harry Potter Alliance is a worldwide community with local chapters which provide young people, such as self-described "super shy" Anna, a path into leadership and reasons for both collective learning about and taking collective civic action on issues such as fair trade, voter registration, disaster relief, and local community initiatives. In both of these examples, both virtual and in-person communities play an important role in the collective learning and growth of its members.
      These two examples share common contexts, properties and design principles. They also both leverage technology, though it is important to note that connected learning does not have to include the use of technology such as the Internet. It does, however, provides helpful design principles to leverage such technology in a deeper and more equitable way.
      The authors propose several different sets of design 'must-haves' for connected learning. In short, connected learning is situated in the 'overlap' between academic settings, interests, and peer culture. Communities should be centered on a shared purpose which includes producing and openly sharing work and ideas. These communities are set up along design principles which emphasis learning by doing (which includes opportunities to observe and 'borrow' from more experienced members) and constant challenge that creates a 'need to know' and 'need to share' in multiple different connected contexts.  Below is information that is further articulated in Table 1 (p.12)
  3 crucial contexts for learning
  • Peer-supported
  •  Interest-powered
  • Academically-oriented, including civic engagement and career opportunity
 Core properties
  • Production-centered
  • Shared purpose
  • Openly networked
 Design principles
  • Everyone can participate
  • Learning happens by doing
  • Challenge is constant
  • Everything is interconnected
 Summary
 Critical Reflection or Important Point
   This resonated with me as an educator and as a person who is sometimes more of a consumer than a 'producer' in the world of new media.
 "Although in principle, one might expect young people to do anything online, as fits their interests, in practice it appears that they climb a fairly predictable ‘ladder of opportunities’ as they become more skilled users (Livingstone and Helsper, 2007). This ‘ladder’, which parallels that conceived in the domain of civic engagement as a ‘ladder of participation’ (Hill and Tisdall, 1997), captures the finding that while many young people take the fairly basic steps (such as checking Wikipedia for schoolwork, watching clips on YouTube, or playing single-person games), fewer undertake the more complex, social, or creative activities that techno-optimists have hoped for them. The EU Kids Online project shows that most youth do not progress very far up this ladder of opportunities (Livingstone, Haddon, Görzig and Ólafsson, 2011), with only a minority creating, uploading or posting content or joining participatory communities (Livingstone et al., 2012; see also Lenhart and Madden, 2005). The emerging hypothesis that undergirds our approach is that the majority of young people need more supports to translate and connect their new media engagements toward more academic, civic, and production oriented activities."  (p.25) emphasis added
 Substantive Discussion Question
 In what ways might the communities developed in connected learning work in conjunction with or have tension with the already existing communities in students' lives (i.e. family, religious communities). What are the positive and negative implications for these different 'established' in-person communities in having students spend an extended amount of time/energy in developing relationships within virtual communities?