Redemption, Unfortunate Genres, and Communities of Practice

Our in-class discussions last week were once again shaped by LEOs, which for some reason needed a redemption. I was given the LEO of a lawyer, a role which entailed thinking of the arguments and counterarguments for claims made in a New York Times opinion article. This particular article, “AI and Big Data Could Power a New War on Poverty,” was quite easy to contest. Besides belonging to the unfortunate genre of “Tech will save education” (which seems to be a repeating theme in this class), the author was quite astute in her incorrect opinion that AI has no biases and therefore could provide an evaluation-free analysis of public assistance programs. The author also proposed a dramatic restructuring of modern American life that was definitely not that big a deal! Everyone will be matched with their corresponding job at the other end of the country maybe and all children will be tutored in isolation based on their strengths and weaknesses. Cool! (*ok, ending obnoxious sarcasm*)

            Fortunately, my other classmates that also had the lawyer LEO were also not having her arguments, and dissected them point by point. I realized midway through out discussion that another point of this exercise was to come up with reasons why her arguments were appealing, but we did not focus on that at all. I thought of how influential the author's credentials were, a researcher at Stanford University, and the visibility of The New York Times opinion column. Her argument was likely to have influence somewhere. I then appreciated it when Kristin suggested that her audience might be people who would fund and support the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality (where the authors works) because it ties in with our information and news literacy discussions. Ultimately, information has value and it’s important that we think of these considerations when presented with an opinion we might disagree with: what are the author’s motives in making this argument?

            We later jigsawed into a different group, where we had a much more robust conversation on all of the learning theories and strategies we have learned thus far. One particular discussion that stood out was our rehashing of what really happened at orientation and whether any of that knowledge transferred. When I recited some of the activities that we had done (all of us were second-years), Nicco pointed out that a lot of these activities were lectures where everyone was sitting around and listening to UMSI’s amalgamation of policies. He believed our time would have been better spent in cohorts, beyond the Information Challenge, where we would discuss the implications of these policies within consistent small groups. This idea resonated with me a lot as I considered the challenges inherent in a school like UMSI that was trying to bring together disciplines and build communities.

            Nicco’s idea also translated well with this week’s readings, as we considered how book clubs or “literature circles” help sustain communities of practice. The idea that learning becomes more engaging and productive when discussing a common element as a group is the central ethos of a book club and explains its popularity. I was struck by the comparisons between the “kid” book club and the “adult” book club in the Daniels and da Rosa dos Santos readings respectively, as they each seemed to have the effect of creating community in addition to creating learning opportunities. I think the major difference I saw was the latitude that was given to the kids in the choice of books they were going to read. The adult book club was much more goal-oriented (how can we learn about design principles so we have a better contextual awareness for our research?), while the kids were more unconstrained, as literacy by any book necessary was the ultimate objective. Reading about the learning practices in these book clubs, I couldn’t help but think of the book club that I attended as a teen in my small-town library. Not only was I able to read boundary-pushing books I couldn't read in school, I also met people who I am still friends with today. That book club now happens online, but is more logistically challenging with our complex adult lives always getting in the way. A strong, shared purpose, as well as a regular schedule, is necessary to have an effective book club experience. In establishing communities of practice, navigating these logistical challenges and communicating these norms and expectations are absolutely paramount, whether or not they use a book club as their scaffolding.