I was extremely interested in Gee's idea of portfolio people, specifically the idea that to be successful in today's job market it is more important to have a variety of diverse experiences than to be very knowledgeable in a narrow field. I found myself identifying with this outlook, particularly as I look back on my own work experiences, where there have been some common elements but where my overall experiences have been much more diverse.

In looking for links between this week's articles, I found myself considering the two MIT articles within the framework of the pedagogies of the Gee piece. Particularly the portion of the Gee article that laid out his Bill of Rights for all children: The right to lots of situated practice, the right to overt instruction, the right to critical framing, and the right to be allowed to produce and transform knowledge not just consume it.

I was interested in the way the Boyd article fit within the right to lots of situated practice. She talked about the difference between the way teens who have internet access at home and those who can only access it in public locations like school or a library participate on myspace. The teens with limited mainly public access still used the site but there experience was much more narrow than those with home access who could spend more time working on their profiles and using the other features of the site to a greater extent. This seemed to be a real world example of situated practice and how it is limited or denied to those from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds. It also seemed to be an example of how those with access have more chances to produce and transform knowledge, while those with less access are again forced into the more marginalized role of consumers. I also felt that Boyd's discussion of the the creation of a copy/paste culture was a fantastic example of Gee's explanation of the difference between learning and knowledge building. It is unimportant if a teen understands html code as long as he/she knows how to find someone else who does they will still be able to create an awesome profile page.

In the Goldman and Booker article I found myself looking at the case studies as examples of situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing, and the opportunity to create and transform knowledge. The film project in particular served as a beautiful example of how all four of those learning objectives could be implemented in a single classroom experience. I also thought the film project was an excellent example of a community of practice and found myself thinking about Gee's statement that in a community of practice they bond through a common endeavor and not affective ties because it seemed clear from the descriptions of the project that the teens had indeed bonded more of their shared participation in the project first and then through the project they developed affective ties.

Response 1

I now can place a reason to why I never, ever play on Facebook: I have absolutely no desire to make my life public. I’m a very private person with a very private life. The idea of having to manage a public identity is just too much for me, therefore I avoid it. I don’t even have the desire to post my “status” there. This is just a side note, really, but it puts me in that category described thus: “we need to figure out how to educate teens to navigate social structures that are quite unfamiliar to us because they will be faced with these publics as adults, even if we try to limit their access now” (Boyd 138). Truly, I am “quite unfamiliar” with these publics because of my own personal idiosyncrasies. I’m not a limiting kind of parent, but as a parent, I especially want to be the guide Boyd references, and will lean much about my wife for the immersion into the language of social networks.

I am still immersing myself into the language of pedagogies and school politics, which were so heavily alluded to in the two MacArthur articles, but much of Gee’s article was fresh air to me because it is uses a contextualization that I have been immersed in for years now. For instance, there is a book called, “The Purple Cow,” which talks about the development of niche novelty being of greater force than the creation of "better" commodities in the marketplace; you want to set yourself apart. Gee says, “What makes a product distinctive is its novelty … – customized – to serve the identity, lifestyle, or interests of a particular type of ‘customer’ …” (46). This was especially interesting in light of learning about MySpace and the fact that its novelty in relationship to musicians and music is what set it apart for teenagers. Knowing that many are abandoning MySpace for Facebook makes me wonder what it is in the novelty of Facebook that has customized it to serve our identities/lifestyles as a general society that attracts us to it.

Further, “What businesses market now are not products…but knowledge” (46) is extremely true based on what I have experienced. What I have learned about competitive advantage is, in fact, that knowledge capacity is the only true competitive advantage and that knowledge capacity is determined by multiplying your ability to discover with your ability to diffuse. Looking at networks and networking and at what happens with the SAB students, this idea especially holds true. Because of the social media, the SAB members are able to maximize their knowledge capacity about bylaws and such through a “community of learners” discovery of them and the inherent diffusion of that information across its membership. Their knowledge capability because of their informal use of these social media allows them to gain both identity and power in their situation. As hierarchical structures in the workplace become flatter, workgroups are able to spread their knowledge faster with the right kinds of technology. In our day and age, however, that technology is rarely easily accessible because either the lack of funding to put into place the media necessary or, more commonly, the old school thinking is still very much in management despite the creative use of resources that could be with some imagination and education.

Jeff Hill

I found a consistent progression in each article. They each started with the idea of language as both a barrier preventing acceptance and an equalizer because once the language was understood, the participants felt a sense of autonomy. This is important for the classroom because you don’t want students to feel as though they are only being acted upon, but that they are an integral member of the community and they in turn will be invested in the class or project. These articles are about how language (Discourse) creates a community.

I really like the vibe Gee generated when he examines language. He isn’t harshly making commentary, but is encouraging as he guides the reader though concepts and new ways of understanding a Discourse we may have thought we already knew.

“All language is meaningful only in and through the contexts in which it is used. All language is meaningful only on the basis of shared experiences and shared information (63).”

It’s because of what we share in the classroom that makes education possible. The meaning will come out of the whole, not the singular assignment, student, project, etc. The teacher continually contextualizes the classroom.

Gee continues, “it is important here to see the word ‘contextualised’ as naming an active process: the process of a person ‘contextualising’, that is, of a person making and doing a context, not just passively registering one. What does it mean to say we humans actively ‘contextualise’ language? ‘Context’ is not just ‘out there’. We do not just ‘reflect’ context when we speak or write. Rather, we always actively create ‘context’. We make the world around us mean certain things (64).”

In Boyd’s analysis of MySpace, she describes the process of creating a profile: “By looking at others’ profiles, teens get a sense of what types of presentations are socially appropriate; others’ profiles provide critical cues about what to present on their own profile. While profiles are constructed through a series of generic forms, there is plenty of room for them to manipulate the profiles to express themselves (127).”

The participant first learns the language, then engages with the community by presenting his or her page. It is only after a learning curve that he or she can fully invest her or himself in the community. The teacher creates those models for the students. Social networking sites are incredibly popular and this is a good example of something educators can learn from them.

There was a similar situation with Goldman’s case study with the student representatives at the local school board. It was technology that helped them first learn the language of the school board and then develop their own voices. It took some time, but they became influential within the context of the school board.

The students’ language and identity are expressed in the context of the classroom or community you are teaching. Allow them to form that identity.

Dialogue, Discourse, and Connection

I'm going to be honest, finding the connection between these articles was a little difficult for me. That said, each article had at least one concept that I really felt I latched onto:

Gee: "People as portfolios"(mentioned first on page 43, but several times after that)
Boyd: People "write themselves into being"on social networking sites (129).
Goldman et al: "Technologies, as communicative vehicles, serve as platforms for dialogue, discourse, and connection." (203)

Gee's article was at times fascinating to me and at times boring (can I say that a reading assignment was boring?). I loved the discussion of New Capitalism and how it requires a different kind of worker, and I REALLY loved it when he talked about ways that those reforms actually influence classroom practices. I don't doubt that the discussion of language etc. was relevant, it was just a little over my head. What I pulled from his article is this: our economy has drastically changed what it requires of (most) of its workers, demanding not that we become experts at a task and perform it well, but rather that we become "expert at becoming experts" (48) in a model that allows for adaptation and flexibility.

Things constantly change in our knowledge-based economy, so that it feels like it's more important to learn how to be a learner than it is to learn any specific skill. This notion of adaptability and flexibility seems to apply particularly to my field of study; I have chosen a field (and I guess since we're all here, we all chose it!) that is constantly in flux. The article on Social-Networking (speaking of which, did anybody else pity the researcher(s) who must have needed to spend hours lurking on teen's profiles on MySpace? There's nothing quite like online ethnography to make you feel like a creepy stalker...) inadvertently demonstrated this: any discussion of social networking needs to include Friendster, but who even uses Friendster anymore? The only reason I even know about it is from reading articles and watching Saturday Night Live. To understand current practices in social networking (which I really don't...), you don't only need to know Friendster, you need to know MySpace, Facebook, Flikr, and probably sites like Ning (my students laugh at me every time I mention Ning...) and LinkedIn. Many of these are completely different than when this article was written. Gee's notion of constantly adapting our knowledge base and skill set certainly applies in this discipline.

I did wish that there was more discussion of how these new developments actually affect our classroom practice. I loved the discussion of reciprocal and jigsaw teaching, and what I think I actually wanted to read was more of a discussion about specific pedagogical strategies to engage these new identities. How does the notion of youth "writing themselves into being" in spaces like MySpace change the way we act in the classroom? It is inarguable that these developments change the way that youth relate to one another and their teachers, but how does that affect the classroom? The media mentioned in the Goldman article, though interesting, seemed less important to youth social development than the social and cultural technology they described (which has little to do with media as I tend to think about it).

This is way past 300 words, so I'll end with this: I wish my personal portfolio included some sweet guitar-playing skills.

Reading Response 1- I AM...

...a daughter, a sister, a friend, a significant other (I’m not sure if we’re calling it girlfriend these days…), a graduate student, an English teacher, a bibliophile, a traveler, a John Mayer fan (sorry Amy)…the list goes on. As I read through the readings for the week, especially thinking of them in regards to the topic of identity, I kept coming back to this question: Who am I? And closely related to that is another question that kept popping up: How do others perceive me in various realms? It’s amazing what new media has done and continues to do in illuminating the complexity of these questions.

Considering the fact that “New People in New Worlds” was written by the same guy, it’s not a surprise that, in my head at least, the article dovetailed a bit with our discussion regarding Gee’s “Reading as a Situated Language” and our brief discussion of it. As I read, I kept making connections back to the idea of discourse, especially when thinking of examining people as portfolios and the conclusions made regarding language in and out of school. I thought that it was extremely interesting how by examining Sandra and Emily, Gee is able to demonstrate how indicative language is of who is and who isn’t a “capitalist portfolio person in the making.” Their identities are so connected to their language, and their “lifeworlds” are made so evident through their very words, that to say that language isn’t contextualized is, in my humble and highly educated opinion, a bit stupid. I really do agree with him when he says that “All language is meaningful only in and through the contexts in which it is used” (63). When I read that “we always actively create ‘context,’” I thought about the fact that, in the creation of meaning, I firmly believe that perception is reality. And, before I even read Gee’s example of sexual harassment, I thought of one that I use with my students when we talk about perception, which can, in my opinion, be transferred to the issue of contextualizing and creating meaning from language.

What I say to students is this:
“Imagine you receive a huge bouquet of flowers (boys and girls alike). They are gorgeous, and whether or not you like flowers, you can truly appreciate that they are beautiful and that they were very expensive. Now imagine that you look at the card, and they are from this adorable boy/girl that you’ve been interested in for forever and who you’ve been out with a few times. How do you feel about receiving the flowers?” After receiving the typical positive responses, I have them think about the very same bouquet, only this time when they open the card, the flowers are from the creepy boy/girl who has been following them around school, waiting outside their house, calling in the middle of the night and hanging up, etc. Now how do they feel about the flowers? Creeped-out is right.

The meaning of the gesture is found within its context rather than within the gesture itself, in much the same way that the meaning of language is found within its context as much as it is within the actual combination of letters written/spoken. As I understand Gee, it seems he’s saying that much of the problem of much of today’s underprivileged youth is found in their inability to comprehend the context of language, which marginalizes them from the “portfolio person” who is more likely to be successful in life. I can appreciate this, and I can even agree with it. In fact, as I read a quote from a 16-yer-old-girl named Nadine in the article “Why Youth Love Social Network Sites,” it was obvious language affects the classification and identification of youth. She says, “As a kid, you used your birthday party guest list as leverage on the playground…Ten, as you grew up and got your own phone, it was all about someone being on your speed dial. Well today it’s the MySpace Top 8. It’s the new dangling carrot for gaining superficial acceptance. Taking someone off your Top 8 is your new passive aggressive power play when someone pisses you off.” Wow. Isn’t it interesting how simple it is to make assumptions about this girl, based on the construction of and our contextualization of that one statement? I think so. And I think that if we were to look at her actual MySpace page, we could very easily find a completely different person there.

So, I guess my question now is: If I can create a complete identity for this girl from simple statement, how are people identifying me, especially once they've looked at my Facebook profile?