Two in one... :-)

  I am writing both of my reading responses in one blog.  I hope this is ok (instructors?).  Since we are having a conversation and making connections, I see no need to break up my entry into two.  What I am coming to realize is that design, community, and identity are as inseparable and mutualistic as Web 2.0 is from real life.  (Yes, I just admitted that Web 2.0 is real life...not quite what I may be used to, but it can be part of life none the less).      With the Cluetrain Manifesto, I began replacing the word "market" with "education," "people from your company," with "teachers," and "we" with "students."  That helped me greatly in relating to the 95 theses. (I was never very good at economics).  Not-so surprisingly, swapping the words did not change the meaning of the statements, just their application.  The three that I pick as my favorite (somewhat arbitrarily, because there are so many) are: "Markets (education) are (is) conversations," "Markets (education) consists of human beings, not demographic sectors," and "We (students) are waking up and linking to each other.  We are watching. But we are not waiting."      I think the main goal of this class is basically just "how do we connect to students and help them to prepare to make the best of their lives?"  If we can accomplish this goal through Web 2.0, we must try and do it (even as reluctant as some of us may be). I still don't think Web 2.0 is a substitute in any way for a face to face conversation with our students, but if connection on the Web helps facilitate that conversation, then it is necessary.     I am still having a lot of difficulty understanding the readings by Wenger. (Can anyone help me!!??) I think it is because of all the definitions.  I do give him credit though, he is trying to define things that almost seem impossible (i.e. like defining interactions in everyday life).  I almost feel that way when trying to define identity, community, and design.  Each definition will be different depending on the person and the context in which they are applied.  By reading Wenger, I am getting a sense of the complex and dynamic connectivity between all three "definitions".  Relating to Web 2.0, to me, "participation" is the actual, physical, human, involvement in the community.   "Reification" is the interface we use and artifacts we leave behind when we visit.  Participation requires an identity as well as a community.  Reification requires participation as well as a design.  Oh dear, now I am confusing myself.  See you all in class.