Discussion questions for Etienne Wenger’s Communities of Practice

Chapter 1:  Meaning

Wenger claims, “Human engagement in the world is first and foremost a process of negotiating meaning” (53).  Consider a community to which you belong (or another in society).  How have dimensions of participation and reification interacted to create the meaning that has shaped that community? 

Chapter 3:  Learning

Wenger claims, “Because the world is in flux and conditions always change, any practice must constantly be reinvented, even as it remains ‘the same practice’” (94).  Can we just as easily reinvent ourselves?  How does our ability (or inability) to do so influence the way we participate in these communities?    

Chapter 4:  Boundary

Wenger claims, “Institutional boundaries draw clear distinctions between inside and outside.  By contrast, boundaries of practice are constantly renegotiated, defining much more fluid and textured forms of participation” (119).  What boundaries are we negotiating as members of WEC?  Are there institutional boundaries in place?   

Chapter 5:  Locality

How does a “constellation” differ from a “community of practice”?  (I thought I understood the distinction on page 127, but as Wenger continued, the terms of relation became a bit muddled.  Contributing to this confusion was the fact that I read almost all of Part I with the misunderstanding that Vignette I was provided to ground readers in a sample community of practice.)

Coda I:  Knowing in practice 

Consider the questions Wenger poses:  “What does a flower know of being a flower?” and “What does a computer know of being a flower?”  Apply Wenger’s philosophy to the questions surrounding technological advancement, specifically writing for electronic communities?  (the practice, not the course…)  How do we attempt to measure what is compromised against what is gained? 

On Publishing (McLuhan)

In Understanding Me, Marshall McLuhan discusses how advancements in technology influence the way readers/writers internalize the written word as both observers and participants in ever-evolving social constructs.  Even though McLuhan delivered his lecture, The Future of the Book, in 1972, his questions continue to resonate in a time when the Web is giving a new function to publication.

Even today, there is a certain elitism associated with becoming published.  There’s a validation that comes with an editor’s approval:  being published means a writer’s work is worthy by (someone’s) standards, though how we choose to measure that worth is subjective.  We read news articles with the understanding that someone has ascertained the facts.  We read books to gain insights on ideas that someone has decided were worth sharing.  And though we may write to explore our own, writing to publish influences our approach.  When we read something in print form, we know that work has met someone’s stamp of approval. 

McLuhan discusses how xeroxing has moved personal writing to a public domain, empowering readers by making them publishers.  With consideration to continued advancement, the Web has provided writers with the same opportunity.  Anyone with the ability to create a Web page or blog has the power to post and be heard–without the approval of a publisher. 

As our concept of literary property changes and more people own the liberty to publish their ideas, how does this affect the way we perceive literary work?  (What is literary work?)  If we write for introspection, will the freedom to publish also perpetuate freedom in our writing that would otherwise be stifiled by the idea of a more critical audience? 

What’s in a breed?

My mother always brought home the animals that “had something wrong with them.”  This left us with a number of different pets growing up, and while they were all special, one dog has convinced me there’s only one breed I want for the rest of my life.

Speckles was a short-haired dappled dachshund who had one brown eye and one blue, though the blue one was obscured by a cataract of sorts that left him blind at birth.  The woman who gave Speckles to my mother warned us that he would lose complete sight by the time he was a year old.

This dachshund was the star of the family and epitomized doxie behavior:  if you moved over one inch, he moved over two, and he behaved as if everything revolved around his world which, from inches above the floor, was a pretty good place to be.  In the three years that Speckles was with us, he never lost sight in his other eye (and appeared oblivious to the fact that he never had it in the first place in his other.)  But he was overweight and had a weak back–a characteristic of the breed–and after several surgeries, we had to put him to sleep.

So when my husband and I decided we were ready for a dog, I knew without question that I wanted a dachshund.  But with all the good qualities Speckles showed me, I also became wiser to the risks involved with this breed.  I recognized the importance of knowing a dog’s lineage and finding a reputable breeder.  I read of dapples‘ risks of blindness and the importance of weight control and exercise to maintain strong backs. 

I would never claim to be an expert on dachshunds, but I would like this blog to serve as a forum for dachshund owners (or those interested in owning a dachshund).  To address questions/concerns or simply share stories. 

Refer to all posts categorized “Everything Dachshund:  Weenies on the Web.” 

 And we did find the perfect dachshund.  Meet Sherlock, a black and tan short-haired mini!  More to come on this guy…

Truth Behind Twin Tales?

 

If you’ve read my About page, you know I have a twin sister, Kristy.  Yes, we’re identical.  I’m the older one–by two whole minutes.  And while we share the same birthing circumstance, my sister and I are two very different people.  Growing up, this wasn’t easy to establish.

You may know a set of twins (or you may be one!) and you’ve probably heard the myths floating around out there.  In attempt to squash those queries on telepathic tendencies, I’d like to set the record straight on a few of the more popular misconceptions.

Myth #4:  There’s a good twin and bad twin in every pair. 

When I was seven or so I smashed the eye of Kristy’s Fraggle to smithereens–it was hardly my shining moment as a twin, but I wasn’t forced to carry the label throughout our childhood.  Kristy even returned the favor by decapitating Barbie, so you can see we were great at taking turns.

Myth #3:  All twins have a special language.

Haven’t you ever known someone so well that you “got” what they meant when no one else had a clue?  I will admit that Kristy and I have developed a talent for understanding each other’s butchered punch lines.  For instance:  “Your Mama’s so fat, the kids say Hey, Kool-Aid!”  (What?)  Without a thought to my omissions, Kristy would laugh (heartily) while everyone else would stare in perplexity.  Special language?  Probably not, but that may be a twin thing…

Myth #2:  All identical twins share some form of ESP.

Maybe I’m biased in my apparent exclusion from this phenomenon, but I just don’t buy it–though others have tried to place me in this circle.  I actually had a friend randomly pinch me once (hard) and while I clasped the offended area, he looked at my sister expectantly, clearly hoping for the slightest reaction other than the raised eyebrow he was receiving for his rudeness.

Myth #1:  Twins are exactly alike in every way.

We may be split from the same egg, but we’re not clones.  Twins may look alike, dress alike, even act alike, but we want to be seen as individuals.  I know the Olsen Twins both pulled it off as Michelle Tanner on Full House, but do you really want to use a show starring  Bob Saget as your basis for reality?

The point? 

Forget the tales and see twins for who they really are:  regular fellows who just happen to have a look-alike.

     

Why classroom teachers?

The use of E-learning, which broadly encompasses learning that is computer enhanced, poses a variety of advantages for learners:  it can break geographical barriers; in higher education, the cost of tuition is typically lower; programs often utilize a variety of delivery methods that appeal to multiple learning styles; and logging onto a computer is a lot easier than driving 45 minutes to campus.  Besides, who wants to pay for the gas?

Yet the argument could be made that no program, however cost effective, accessible, or convenient, could replace the role a teacher plays in the classroom.

Because this division is far more complicated than the above,  I wanted to start with the basic question: 

Why do we need teachers in the classroom?