March 2008 Archives
During the Facebook session of the Penn State Teaching and Learning Symposium, the fascination with Facebook and the desire to communicate intrigued me. I began to think about how we have previously defined community, and I think that the definition needs to include communication. In a community, you are constantly communicating both verbally and nonverbally. You are confirming and rejecting ideas, thoughts, perceptions, and actions. Communication is essential in a community (I think). From there, my thoughts wandered into whether communication was innate. After all groups of animals, be it herds of cattle, flocks of geese, schools of fish, and even communities of people, all have to communicate in order to function and survive. The rise in popularity of the social networking sites (Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Flickr, YouTube, etc.) confirmed my thoughts about our natural desires to communicate with others and create community.
How do you feel before you have to speak publicly in front of an audience? Do you get nervous? Clammy hands? Butterflies in the stomach? Tongue-tied? Dry mouth? Other nervous symptoms? For me, that's exactly how I feel when I podcast. For me, I much prefer to present to a live audience than through a radio or video medium.
I began to notice this concept in our class. I'm not one to be shy when participating in class, but the moment that Cole pulls out the microphone and turns it on, I instantly feel my cheeks flush and my words flee. I feel completely choked. The same symptoms have happened when I have been interviewed for television. I just don't understand why I have this phobia.
In an attempt to try to understand my reactions, I have been thinking about the potential causes. When I present, the communication is two-way. Even if I am using a transmission model, I still am receiving instantaneous feedback from my audience from their body language. When I podcast, I can't see my audience. I have no idea what they are thinking, and I feel my stuttering and nervous actions impact my ability to think clearly. Ultimately it's incredibly frustrating, but I guess that the only way to overcome your fears is to face them. I'll keep trying. "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again..."
Do you suffer from this disease?
I began to notice this concept in our class. I'm not one to be shy when participating in class, but the moment that Cole pulls out the microphone and turns it on, I instantly feel my cheeks flush and my words flee. I feel completely choked. The same symptoms have happened when I have been interviewed for television. I just don't understand why I have this phobia.
In an attempt to try to understand my reactions, I have been thinking about the potential causes. When I present, the communication is two-way. Even if I am using a transmission model, I still am receiving instantaneous feedback from my audience from their body language. When I podcast, I can't see my audience. I have no idea what they are thinking, and I feel my stuttering and nervous actions impact my ability to think clearly. Ultimately it's incredibly frustrating, but I guess that the only way to overcome your fears is to face them. I'll keep trying. "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again..."
Do you suffer from this disease?
Okay, I must confess that Wenger is starting to win me over. I have these grandiose ideas about identity; however, my vocabulary to describe such thoughts is quite lacking. Where Wenger excels (and the reason I am becoming an aficionado) is his ability to use eloquent language to explain his theories.
On page 169, Wenger talks about institutionalized non-participation in that aspects of the institution or context create and/or promote non-participation of its members. Wenger uses the examples of claims processors who claim to not want to discuss job-related topics during breaks yet their conversations are saturated with such aspects. This example made me think of talk in the teacher’s lounge at school. During lunch, teachers formed groups, or communities if you will. I remember that they, too, had a similar rule of outlawing talk related to school during that time, but just like claims processors, realized the fact that that which is forbidden quickly finds entrance. To me, the job of teaching provided the common experience, the focus, around which the community had a shared experience, but this potential bond was marginalized. Why do we outlaw the glue that could hold the pieces of the puzzle together permanently?
Wenger also talks about the balance between the institution and its workers by saying, “You give me your time, and I’ll give you money; you don’t invest yourself in me, and I won’t invest myself in you.” This quote made me think of teacher unions and their role in institutionalized non-participation. I was often told not to extend myself too much, otherwise administration would expect that standard from me and give me nothing in return. It seems as if this institutionalized non-participation can be detrimental to both the COP within the school and to the students. How does one combat institutionalized non-participation if it is an undesired trait (to which I am inferring in this case)?
On page 169, Wenger talks about institutionalized non-participation in that aspects of the institution or context create and/or promote non-participation of its members. Wenger uses the examples of claims processors who claim to not want to discuss job-related topics during breaks yet their conversations are saturated with such aspects. This example made me think of talk in the teacher’s lounge at school. During lunch, teachers formed groups, or communities if you will. I remember that they, too, had a similar rule of outlawing talk related to school during that time, but just like claims processors, realized the fact that that which is forbidden quickly finds entrance. To me, the job of teaching provided the common experience, the focus, around which the community had a shared experience, but this potential bond was marginalized. Why do we outlaw the glue that could hold the pieces of the puzzle together permanently?
Wenger also talks about the balance between the institution and its workers by saying, “You give me your time, and I’ll give you money; you don’t invest yourself in me, and I won’t invest myself in you.” This quote made me think of teacher unions and their role in institutionalized non-participation. I was often told not to extend myself too much, otherwise administration would expect that standard from me and give me nothing in return. It seems as if this institutionalized non-participation can be detrimental to both the COP within the school and to the students. How does one combat institutionalized non-participation if it is an undesired trait (to which I am inferring in this case)?
Wenger’s notions of identity and community intertwine when I think of my experiences as a new teacher. When I was a first-year teacher, I remember the difficulties of entering my new school’s community. Tension existed between the “veterans” and the “rookies.” On page 157, Wenger discussions the concerns a newcomer has when entering a new community and the challenges that both the established and the entering members have as membership in the community changes. Wenger says that, “They (old-timers or veterans) might thus welcome the new potentials afforded by new generations who are less hostage to the past,” but they also can frown upon the extreme energy, perceived lack of competence, and naivety that rookies bring to the job. This interaction shapes identities of both parties, but I also want to throw in another term from our course (dare I say the “d” word) design. This tension has design implications for schools and more particularly building principals who are charged with building community (of practice) with their staff members. How does (or should) a principal recognize the complex interplay of community and identity when crafting (designing) the interactions necessary to create the desired community (of practice)?
