Applications of Affinity Space Characteristics in [Computer Science] Education
In this episode I unpack my (2020) publication titled “Applications of affinity space characteristics in music education,” which has twelve characteristics of informal learning spaces that I will discuss in relation to computer science education.
-
Welcome back to another episode of the CSK8 podcast.
My name is Jared O'Leary.
Each episode of this podcast alternates between an interview with a guest
or multiple guests and a solo episode where it unpacks some scholarship.
In this particular episode, I'm unpacking the chapter titled Applications
of Affinity Space Characteristics in Music Education.
I Jerod O'Leary argues that I mispronounced your name.
Just kidding. That's me.
All right.
So this is the chapter that came out last year, and I'm going to talk
about how it relates to computer science education.
All right.
So here's the abstract for this paper.
Note Affinity spaces are these physical, virtual or combination
of locations where people come together around a shared affinity.
Affinity spaces can act as a participatory hub for music
making and learning through social networking and sharing.
Although music affinity spaces exist in myriad informal spaces,
little Scholarship explores essential applications of affinity
space characteristics within formalized learning spaces.
This chapter introduces characteristics of an affinity space and questions
the role of the framework in relation to another framework
commonly used in online music learning Communities.
Communities of practice.
This chapter concludes with a discussion on practical and theoretical applications
of affinity space characteristics within formalized educational contexts
in quote, I write So even though I wrote this particular chapter for the Oxford
Handbook of Social Media and Music Learning, I'm going to talk about this
in relation to computer science education as this, after all, is a US podcast.
Now, if you find this particular discussion interesting,
I just want to let you know that there are many more resources
on my website and in the show notes that relate to this particular chapter.
So make sure you click on the link in the show notes and take a look
at some of the questions that are on the Shownotes
page or even look at some of the other presentations and publications I've done.
By the way, if the idea of interest driven
learning interests you and you are a researcher
and want to collaborate, please reach out to me.
Let me know.
There's a contact Me button on my website always willing to chat.
Okay, so some background.
If any of these spaces was coined by James.
Paul G.
Is a professor that I had at ASU and he said it was basically like
a reaction to some of the shortcomings
that he perceived in communities of practice.
So he was analyzing some informal learning spaces
such as like discussion forums and like online learning spaces
and whatnot where people are able to come together and share their passions
and their interest in a very specific topic.
And so he came up
with these characteristics after looking at a bunch of different spaces
and then basically theorized, Here are some potential things that we can
learn in education contexts, like formalized educational contexts.
However, most of his writing was very theoretical.
It was like, Here's hypothetical. See how you could do this thing?
After I read a bunch of his scholarship on this,
I really wanted to go back into the classroom and try and figure out, well,
what would this actually look like?
So when I went back into the classroom and was teaching K-8,
coding and makerspace classes, I applied each of these characteristics
into the classes that I was working with.
So this chapter is basically a summary of what the characteristics are
and how I apply them in my classroom, and then I translate it into music
education context.
But for your own background,
all of these characteristics were actually applied in coding
and makerspace classes originally when I was actually doing them in the classroom.
But because the audience for this
particular book was music educators, I wrote it for music educators.
So I'm going to translate it back to the original context for you.
All right.
So if any of these spaces have been discussed
in a variety of different communities,
such as people who are interested in the game dance dance revolution
or the video game, the Sims or Neopets writing communities
or even affinity spaces around specific celebrity use
or other, just like video games and video game mods
or even the chip scene, which is what I actually looked at, or my dissertation.
The scholarship was basically looking at like informal learning spaces
where people are not required to attend but choose to come together
and share their interest in this very specific topic.
I think of like a subreddit that could be a form of an affinity space.
So here's a summary of the 12 characteristics.
This is from page 66.
Number one Affinity spaces share a common and endeavor.
Number two, affinity spaces are not segregated by age.
Number three, affinity spaces are not segregated by experience,
and therefore affinity spaces encourage, but do not require active participation.
Number five Interaction transforms content within an affinity space.
Number six, affinity spaces encourage both intensive and extensive knowledge.
Number seven, affinity spaces encourage individual and distributed knowledge.
Number eight Affinity spaces encourage dispersed knowledge.
Number nine Affinity spaces encourage and honor tacit knowledge.
Number ten Affinity spaces encourage a multitude of engagement.
Number 11 affinity spaces have multiple rights to status,
and number 12, leadership is porous and leaders are resources.
I saw in the chapter itself, I summarize each of the characteristics
and then I go into a brief example of what this looks like in informal spaces.
I'm going to talk about that now in relation to space education.
All right.
So characteristic one affinity spaces share a common endeavor.
So in a computer science class, this might be a common endeavor
around wanting to create things with code.
Although there might be a variety of reasons why somebody is participating
in a space that is dedicated to learning about computer
science or programing, the subject itself could be shared.
Common endeavor.
However, that depends on how you frame the class.
So if you assume buy in from students, then like it's an elective class
or something like that,
then you might be able to have the common endeavor around coding or programing.
However, if it is a mandatory class,
you can't assume that there is a shared common endeavor because students
are required to be there like in the classes that I was working with.
So what I tried to do was make it so that while they shared a common experience,
they were able to explore that
through their own specific interests and then work together or individually
and get feedback from other individuals in the class or outside of the class.
Talk about later to explore their interests through code.
So it became a medium for expression.
All right.
So characteristic to affinity spaces are not segregated by age.
So within an affinity space, like an informal learning space,
you might have some adults in there.
You might have some teenagers in there, a wide range of ages
and whatnot within the space sharing their experiences.
So, for example, if you go to a space like StackOverflow, people
who respond might be in their fifties or they might be a teenager.
And your age is not determined whether or not you get elevated in status,
It's your level of contribution and quality of contribution
that determines whether or not people engage with content that you're sharing.
So, for example,
if you write a really awesome line of code, people might promote it
and it's not segregated into, okay, well, only the younger programmers are
in this space and the older programmers are in a separate, disconnected space.
This is different how we typically see things in schools
unless you're in some kind of like a mixed grade level, like a montessori
style class or some other kind of class that has combined grade levels,
you're likely going to have kids who have like a one or two year age
difference in the classes that you're in. That's about it.
So one way that I actually apply this characteristic in the coding classes is
I would one, have an elective where kids could attend so that maybe two at least,
so that sixth, seventh and eighth graders could all share the same space.
However, they didn't have elective options for the K through five classes.
So what I did was make it so that on our class website it's
we're able to share their projects, whether it was in a scratch studio
or in a folder, and they were able to look at and engage
with projects and code created by people in different grade levels, different ages.
All right.
So characteristic three affinity spaces are not segregated by experience.
So experts through beginners are all able to share the same space
It's not segregated to.
Okay, all the beginner is here in this particular space,
all the intermediates individuals,
you're in another space and then all the experts.
You're in a completely different disconnected space.
This is different than typically what goes on in K-12 context.
So if we think of like math classes, we have a separated into,
okay, you're going to learn this specific type of math or your particular level.
And it really doesn't matter what grade you're in.
What matters is your level of experience or expertise in math,
which, by the way, that makes it easier for you to teach because you have a less
dispersed set of expertise when working with those kinds of kids.
However, it also makes it so that kids don't get to work
with other kids who have different experience levels in them,
which can be really rewarding, especially if you think of
like the peer learning and whatnot that can occur
if you have more experienced kids who are mentoring, less experienced kids.
This is one of the things that I would try and do any coding classes.
So if somebody had a question and I knew that somebody else
had the answer to that
because they had more experience or deeper understanding of the problem
that the other student was trying to solve,
I'd pair them up and be like, Hey, this person has a question.
You help them out with that.
So while it can sometimes be beneficial to pair students into groups and be like,
okay, the novice programmers are going to be in this group,
the intermediate and the advanced are going to be in two separate groups.
If you were to explore this characteristic,
you might be able to try and figure out how can I make it
so that the students with different expertise is able to work with each other?
All right.
So characteristic
for affinity spaces and courage, but do not require active participation.
Okay, so this one might be a little bit weird
for you to think through in a formalized educational context
where you're likely giving some kind of a grade.
All right.
So here's a quote from page 68 and 69.
Quote, All members encourage others to participate within this space.
How and when a member participates is up to them.
These forms of participation
may spread across a continuum of implicit and explicit participation,
where people can learn, interact with, respond to or create new content, unquote.
So think of like a subreddit forum, maybe one related to programing or something.
You don't have to participate to actually view the content.
You could see months or years worth of conversations going on
without ever even responding, uploading or anything in that particular space.
So the way that I tried to apply this in the classes that I work with is
let's say that there were a couple of kids who wanted to work on a game together,
and one of them was being the driver, the other person was being the navigator.
The navigator never necessarily had to switch spots with the driver,
which is typically done Impaired programing,
like set a timer for 20 minutes and then every 22 minutes you switch.
Who is the driver and who is the navigator?
A common practice works pretty well in some instances,
but in my classes I didn't require that.
What I did want to see is that people actually understood what was occurring.
So if somebody wanted to be the navigator only,
so they would just kind of engage in dialog with their partner or partners.
I wanted them to at least understand what the person with
the mouse was actually doing and could explain what was going on.
The code.
I didn't want them to just sit there and not know what was going on.
However, they did not actually have to write any lines of code.
Most students, probably at least 90 to 95% of kids,
wanted to actively participate
because they wanted to express themselves and create something interesting to them.
But there is maybe one student, every other class or so who wanted to work
in these kind of scenarios where they just wanted
to learn working with somebody else, but they didn't
necessarily want to be the person who created it.
They'd engage in the dialog and not necessarily actively create.
And my administration was completely okay with this
because they were at least engaged in they understood what was going on.
I could still assess their understanding and they did well.
It's just their form of participation differed from their peers,
which for me was fine.
All right. So characteristic
five interaction transforms content within in an affinity space.
All right.
So here's a quote from page
among affinity space members, the visibility and organization content
within the space repositions in relation to changes in priorities.
For example, priority topics
within a form tend to appear at the top of the form for ease of access.
In addition, content within affinity spaces continuously
changed due to the interactions with any space unquote.
Right.
So in a classroom, what I tried to do was make it
so that when kids submitted their projects
and they wanted to share it on the class website,
that would change what was available or the other classes to take a look at.
So the submission of a project
to be placed on the class website and within studios and things like that
transform the content by making it so that other students could now engage
with that content and remix it, alter it to comment on it, etc.
This led to some really interesting types of engagement where a kid would come up
with a unique idea, like, I want to create a quiz game about
my favorite candy bars or something like that.
When they'd submit that project and turn it in onto the studio.
What I'd find over the next couple of weeks is several more
kids would look at that project and go, Oh, I really like that,
but I'm going to do my own variation on it.
I'm going to do my favorite celebrities or a quiz on my favorite rock bands
or something like that,
and then they would eventually submit their projects
and then that would transform the content
and that would inspire new variations on those projects.
All right.
So characteristic six affinity
spaces encourage both intensive and extensive knowledge.
So intensive knowledge is like
the specialist knowledge or the depth and the extensive knowledge
is more of the expansive knowledge or the breadth of something.
So within an affinity space, it encourages both.
They want people to understand the affinity as a whole,
broader knowledge around the space, but they also value
and respect individualized expertise within that space.
So not everybody within the space is expected to know the same thing
or be an expert on the same thing, which we'll talk a little bit more
about in the next characteristic dealt what this might look like in
like my coding classes is I encourage kids
to understand the range of things that could be created through code
and the range of languages that they hand options to use.
So for context, in my class, they could work on something in scratch or
they could use JavaScript in Khan Academy or Ruby in Sonic Pint code like music,
or they could also use swift increase, something like an app in Xcode,
they have many different routes and options and things,
and so I wanted them to understand
what those different options were so they could choose a platform
or language that best suited their particular interests.
However, I wanted them to have intensive,
in-depth knowledge on a very specific thing they wanted to do
if they wanted to be a storyteller through scratch.
And great, I want you to be really good at storytelling.
I don't want you
to just keep repeating the same things in each one of your projects.
I want you to keep diving deeper so that every project
that you are building builds off of what you previously understood, but
also dives deeper into areas that you don't understand.
What typically happens in the K-12 space is we tend to focus on one
or the other, like we're all going to have intensive knowledge
on one specific thing or we're all going to have a like
survey breadth of knowledge understanding on a wide range of topics.
If you think of the science or coding curricula that you are using,
I encourage you to think through in what ways is it encouraging
extensive knowledge, in what ways is and encouraging in terms of knowledge,
and how could you potentially do both?
All right.
So characteristic seven
affinity spaces encourage individual and distributed knowledge.
So because everybody has their own intensive knowledge or their own depth
of understanding and in areas of expertise that is interesting to them,
this encourages individuals to have their own specialized knowledge.
All right.
So now where knowledge is distributed is, for example, in the coding classes
that I worked with, some kids were like, really want to get good at
like player controls and make a variety of games
with different player controls and whatnot.
So if another student had a question about it, I would say,
Oh, well, this person over here has an individualized knowledge
that you are looking for.
So how about you chat with him and ask some questions
and work with him to learn more about player controls?
So because everybody had their own intensive and individualized knowledge,
it made it so that the expertise was distributed
and encourage kids to go towards other experts within the shared space
and learn more from them. All right.
So characteristic number eight affinity spaces encourage dispersed knowledge.
So in addition to the distributed knowledge within the shared space, members
also encourage sharing resources outside of the space.
So what does that look like in a classroom?
So for me it was all about pointing to resources
that might be able to help kids, whether it was like a tutorial
or a video or something like that, or walking through showing kids, Here's
what I would do in order to try and solve that particular problem.
So for example, maybe I would go in these scratch discussion forums
and see if somebody else has had a similar problem
or maybe go on the scratch Wikipedia page to learn more about
a specific thing to see if that might be all this.
So I would help kids to understand that they're not just limited
to my understanding of programing and helping them out,
and that they are also not limited to the understanding of their peers
in the classroom, in the shared physical space.
But they can learn how to solve problems by getting resources
outside of the space itself.
And why is this important?
Because for me, I was all about trying to get kids
to understand that this is a lifelong process,
and I'm not going to be there every single step of the way
to answer their particular problems.
And they're not going to have peers
who are going to be able to answer their problems.
So I wanted them to learn how to learn independent
so that way they could continue to learn about things
they were interested in, in their own leisure time characteristic.
Nine Affinity spaces encourage and honor tacit knowledge.
All right, so this characteristic is another one that's a bit different
than what's typically occurring within a 12 contacts.
So here's a quote from page
share knowledge not only through words games related to the affinity space.
People within these spaces often judge others by what they can do with knowledge
and not what they can list.
Application of knowledge is often valued higher than the knowledge itself.
However, those interested in simply playing are not required
to demonstrate their prowess to others and quote.
All right.
So this is very different than what typically occurs in evaluations
or assessments.
So we want kids to be able to explain what they know, not just demonstrate
that they can do something.
So, for example, some key educators might look at a project
and go, okay, that's an excellent project that we've created.
The code works really well.
However, I want you to add in comments
that explains each one of these sections or each one of the functions in here,
so I can make sure that you understand what's going on.
And that's great for assessing things.
However, if you were to use this characteristic
of the affinity space, you might just encourage,
okay, I just want you to create things that are interesting to you.
You don't need to explain to me how every little thing works
that might encourage the accidents or experimentation.
However, you could certainly pair those with some like ipsa tive questions.
You encourage kids to reflect on something that they learned
and how it compares with what
they previously learned, maybe even set goals for like, okay,
now here's what I want to learn next, or here's what I want to create next
without necessarily being able to explain what they are creating now.
By the way, I know some of these characteristics
might be controversial, but I do encourage reading the chapter.
I know I'm biased because I wrote it,
but I hope this podcast episode kind of serves as a catalyst
for questioning some of those thoughts
that you might be having while listening to this where you're going.
Yeah. Jared, but I really disagree with you right here.
Okay, but why?
What in your background led you to think that we should not honor tacit knowledge?
And I say that because these are questions that I really grappled with
when I was reading through names, passages, discussions on affinity spaces.
Okay.
Tangent over so
characteristic ten affinity spaces encourage a multitude of engagement.
This type of engagement is both implicit and explicit forms of participation,
so an explicit form of participation might be like
responding to somebody else's project or remixing somebody else's project.
Whereas an implicit form of participation might be just to try out their project
to play it.
Like if it's a game, maybe they'll just play their game.
You might not comment on it, you might read through their code,
but that's it.
That would be a form of implicit engagement.
Now, while most of any of these spaces do encourage explicit forms of engagement
over the implicit ones, there is not like a set minimum criteria.
So an example of how this might differ from like a typical class that you might
see is like especially in online spaces, you might see like create
one original post and respond to two or three of your peers like that
are examples of explicit and required forms of participation.
But instead for an assignment you might just say to respond in some way
to a specific topic, whether that's creating a post,
responding to somebody else's post, sharing a resource, uploading things,
watching videos on a topic or whatever.
These are all different forms of engagement.
You can encourage different forms of engagement,
which, by the way, aligns with some of the things that I talked about in
a previous episode On the Universal Design for Learning framework.
If you haven't listened to that episode, I'd recommend checking it out.
Not to be more explicit with this and to type more into like programing.
You might say that instead of everybody doing the same kind of coding,
like starting from a blank page, you could say, All right,
if you'd like to, you can remix this particular project
or if you'd like to, you could create your own project
with your own ideas, or if you'd like to, you could try
and refine somebody else's code so improve it in some way.
Or you could try and reverse engineer somebody else's project
by only looking at how it works, but not actually looking at the code.
These are all different
forms of engagement that all involve programing in some way.
All right.
So characteristic number 11 affinity spaces have multiple routes to status,
so people in an affinity space can post things, they can respond to things
they can like favorite or a thumbs up, thumbs down things, or write something.
They can share it in other areas or other spaces.
These are all like forms of clout or status that can be gained within the space
through the different types of engagement that can be done.
Now, typically in a classroom setting, we might be limited to just
a grade of assignments that are only seen by a teacher
and the only person who sees that grade is the student
who submitted that assignment.
That might be one route to status.
However, if you were to use this characteristics, it might also say,
okay, people can share their projects publicly if they choose to do so,
and then students can respond to that by commenting on Inter Harding inter
favoring it or whatever.
Or we could have some artwork style
showcasing where like you have your computer lab set up
where everybody's standing around the computer and has their projects up.
You can have community members come in and ask questions about the project
and talk with students about what they created.
This is another route to status that could be done, etc.
So there are many different ways that students could potentially in some clout
or contribute their expertise in some way within the space itself
that can be intrinsically or astronomically rewarding for the student.
All right.
So characteristic 12 leadership is porous and leaders are resources.
So here's a quote from page
space is often porous, lacks overt power, and is reciprocal.
Sometimes a person leads and other times a person follows.
In quote, Angie notes that leaders within these spaces often design
the space and encourage participate, but they kind of can switch
between like an audience and a peer or a leader or things like that.
It's not a fixed designation where they are always leading.
Now, the way that I apply this in the class is with how I facilitated it.
So I was not always like leading a lecture or something like that.
In fact, I basically never did that with a full group.
I was a resource and then I was able to respond
to a student's question with some more questions.
I'd help guide them through their thinking.
Now, include some links to some podcasts that I've done on
how I did that and some questions that you might consider in your class.
They're going to be in the show notes,
but I was also a connector, so whenever a student would come to me
and ask a question,
I would encourage them to connect with another peer who I knew
could answer the question.
So again, going back to the characteristic
about individualized and distributed knowledge, I also would share whenever
I was learning something or whenever I feel that something
so I'd like start the class and just like spend a minute
and say like, Hey, here's a project that I was working on this week
and here's a bug that I had and here's how I solved it.
Trying to show that I am also a learner and not just the person who knows all
the answers to everything related to programing
and to let students know that, yeah, we all make mistakes in our code
and we all can learn from them.
And here are some of the strategies I used to learn from my mistake.
All right, so the next section of this chapter
is titled Using Affinity Spaces as a Lens for Music Talk.
Now that is the discussion forum that I investigated for my dissertation.
So if you're interested in that, you can read the dissertation itself
or you can just see this particular like couple of pages you see, okay,
well how do each of these characters kind of work together
within a space that is around people shared interest in a topic?
Now note
that not every single affinity space needs to have all 12 of these characteristics.
So if you're listening to this and you're like, okay, I really like,
I don't know,
characteristics one, two and three, but I don't know about characteristic four.
I don't know if I can do that in my classroom wholly fine.
So hopefully listen to the previous section
that I was just talking about going, Yeah, I might try that out or
I don't know about that one. I need to think through that some more.
You don't have to do all 12 of them.
And in fact, you could just start with baby steps
and just do one at a time and see how that works for you.
Now section after that, in this particular chapter is titled
Juxtaposing Affinity Spaces with Communities of Practice.
Whole Communities of Practice is a framework that was developed
by Layvin Winger and interlocks about an apprenticeship model
and while G was heavily informed by leaving Winger, affinity
spaces in response to me needs a practice because she did not feel that
it worked really well within like these informal online spaces in particular.
So if you're interested in hearing more about how those two are similar
and different, take a look at that section in the chapter.
So the next section is titled Affinity Spaces and Formalized Education.
Now, I do note in here that it is difficult, if not possible,
to force affinity space characteristics
within a formalized educational context.
You can certainly try and you can do a lot of really awesome things,
but you can't force upon students the idea of affinity spaces.
So here's a quote from page 76 of talks about how formalized
educational context are different than affinity spaces.
This is a whole paragraph one reads.
But unlike affinity spaces, many formalized educational contexts
require students to participate in classes regardless of shared interests.
For example, graduation requirement mandating particular classes.
Classes often segregate students by age or experience level,
and often do not include discussion or collaborations
with peers outside of the class grade or experience level.
Some classes require active participation through a narrow scope of engagement.
For example, some music classes focus on recreating the music of others
rather than creating new music.
However, when educators do encourage diverse modes of engagement,
it is often through predetermined curricula
or standards that seldom transform through student interaction,
rather than cultivating individualized expertise
through collaboration with other experts in a shared domain.
Many educators curricula and standards attempt to ensure all students
learn the same extensive knowledge of a subject area.
Getting help from peers within or outside of a class is often viewed
as cheating, as schools tend to isolate students within a collective
or prevent access to outside resources.
In some schools, doing is often less valued than saying, For example, music
theory classes might favor music analysis over music performance or composition.
Although schools tend to provide multiple routes to socially recognized
success or status, or EPA membership, athletics, honor, roll, etc.,
classrooms often limit success to grades
obtained through restricted criteria.
Lastly, leadership within school is often one sided.
Students are learners and rarely teachers and feedback
comes from the teacher was not a peer and quote.
Now throughout that paragraph I include the characteristic numbers
to that way you can reference like, Oh,
this is characteristic for that I was talking about right there.
So all that may sound like a bummer.
The next section of the chapter talks about an example
of how to apply the affinity space characteristics in a classroom.
All right.
So I'm actually going to read this section entirely.
So this is from page 76 to page 78.
So this example that I'm about to read is talking
about the makerspace elective that I facilitated.
However, every single one of these
applied to the coding classes that I facilitated as well.
But imagine walking into a computer lab at a local K-8 school
with computers lining the perimeter
of the two longest walls and two rows of computers and tables facing inward.
In the center of the room,
The room's design encourages social interaction for peer
to peer sharing, learning a daily process for all classes held in the space.
When walking in,
you immediately hear a lot of talking, laughing and a jumble of music and sounds.
Dozens of kids
sit and work on a variety of projects at computers, tables and on the floor.
Others walk around the room, examining others as projects,
and some stand in discuss
a variety of subject areas in interest relevant to media arts ecology.
The theme of media, arts and technology guides The kinds of projects we create
in this class and access is shared common endeavor for those who sign up.
Characteristic on projects include creating music and GarageBand,
coding art and animation with JavaScript, filming and editing stop motion movies,
shooting games and stories with scratch designing web pages using HTML
coding music with Sonic Pi, drawing and animating pixel art
Creating apps for the class set of tablets, building and listening
to modular synthesizers
through littleBits, picking apart and rebuilding old electronics
and more characteristic and although district mandates
require that students receive a grade for their elective I basic
grade on engagement and processes rather than creation of products.
Characteristic
where students provide feedback for peers but do not create their own products.
Artistic.
For example, some students preferred to rotate around the room
and provide feedback on other projects rather than creating their own.
Within a class or two of examining and commenting on projects,
these students often asked to collaborate with a peer
whose project they found interesting,
or they began working on their own creations inspired by their peers.
In addition,
I encourage tacit knowledge within creative processes
and do not require an assessment
or mandated demonstration of verbal or written understanding characteristic.
Nine.
The goal of the class
is to acquire an extensive knowledge of the various happenings in the space,
but also to encourage individuals to develop intensive knowledge
useful for their own projects of interest or interest.
Six students within the space choose when to turn in a project.
However, there are no requirements for submitting projects,
nor do they have to complete a project once started.
This approach encourages a range of engagement from weekly sampling
to extended engagement with a project over multiple years.
After a second,
when someone creates a project they would like to turn in,
they may choose to make their project publicly accessible to others within
and outside of our school,
may remix shared project files or engage with finalized products.
This approach transforms not only the content within our class,
but also within other classes across the school and beyond.
After a stick five, for example, a student who creates music in Sonic
Pi can choose to upload a text file of their creation
into a folder that is accessible to other students in the school.
This allows students the opportunity to download and remix the music
in their coding classes mandated for all grades K through eight,
or by accessing the files on a personal computer outside of school.
The members need more space or people for a particular project
to alter the room's arrangement or move into adjacent spaces.
Characteristic five For example, we use the adjacent library.
When students decided to create a short film with several students
in the class and a school administrator as actress and actor.
Although this selective builds mixed ages and experience levels,
after a six, two and three knowledge is dispersed
characteristic eight across all grade levels and outside the school
someone in second grade can interact with on
or remix projects created by someone in another class,
another grade myself, or someone outside of our school district.
Eight.
When someone has a question in the class, the expectation is to ask
at least two classmates before asking you for help.
However, when someone asked me a question, I often pair them
with a peer who has expertise relevant to their question.
ACTRESS seven Although I am a hired educator for the space,
I deliberately position myself as a co learner and encourage autonomy.
Characteristic 12.
I view my role as the initial designer of the space and facilitator of learning.
I encourage the kids I work with
to customize the space to match their own interests.
Five.
During each class, I walk around asking questions about processes
and products and encourage peer to peer learning and sharing, unquote.
All right.
So that was that particular section.
Now, immediately following this, I provide a heuristic for this.
So the next section is titled Affinity Spaces as a heuristic, which provides
some more explicit examples of some things to consider or think through.
If you want to try and apply some of these characteristics within your classroom.
Now, I'm going to leave that as a teaser
because I want to actually encourage you to read the chapter itself.
However, I do want to state that normally I end these episodes
with like some lingering questions or thoughts,
but because I'm the person who actually wrote this thing,
I know what I was thinking and I don't really have questions for myself,
but I want to share some questions that I created for you.
So in the show notes, I actually have some questions
that I had included in the appendices for this particular chapter.
However, I rewrote them all to specifically talk about computer
science education.
So for every single one of the 12 characteristics,
there are between three and eight questions.
To help you consider that particular characteristic
in relation to a computer science space, for example.
Or number four, affinity spaces encourage but do not require active participation.
Here are some of the questions that I have on Are there What kinds of
see US engagement count as participation with an X or coding class or community?
What kinds of participation are required from members of a community or for a grade
in a class who can or cannot participate in a space
with requisite forms of engagement are diverse.
Other forms of participation over time in a C or coding class or community.
What are the affordances and constraints of homogeneous participation
within a shared space?
What should educators or facilitators
consider when designing educational spaces with a multitude of engagement?
How might social media augment engagement in such spaces?
So that style of questions and thinking is all applied
to each one of the characteristics?
And again, as found in the shownotes which is linked to in the app
you're listening to this on,
or you can simply go to Gerard
O'Leary dot com and then clicking on the podcast tap.
Now by the way, if you are interested in these affinity spaces,
make sure to check out the other presentations and publications
and even the 100% free curriculum that I develop or boot up
professional development,
which was heavily informed by the affinity space characteristics
and then also the rise of Matic learning that was discussed by Katherine Fawn Haas
on Stapleton and Katie Henry in a previous podcast
episode we'll link to in the show notes if you haven't heard that right.
So I hope you enjoyed this particular episode.
I've been intentionally putting this one off
because I thought it was a little weird to read something that I wrote,
but I've had enough people who have been asking
about these characteristics and like random conversations related to this.
I keep pointing to this as like, Hey, here's
an example of something that might help you.
So I hope this doesn't come across as like hubris or anything like that
because I'm sharing something that I created.
I just hope it in some way helps you out.
And if it does, just please consider sharing with somebody else.
Maybe it'll help them too.
Anyways, I hope you enjoyed this episode and I hope you say too next week
for another interview
and the following week for another unpacking scholarship episode up.
You're all staying safe and I hope you're all having a wonderful week.
Chapter
O’Leary, J. (2020). Applications of Affinity Space Characteristics in Music Education. In The Oxford Handbook of Social Media and Music Learning, edited by Janice Waldron, Stephanie Horsley, and Kari Veblen (pp.65-87). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Abstract
“Affinity spaces are the physical, virtual, or combination of locations where people come together around a shared affinity (interest) (Duncan & Hayes, 2012). Online affinity spaces can act as a participatory hub for music making and learning through social networking and sharing. Although music affinity spaces exist in myriad informal spaces, little scholarship explores potential applications of affinity space characteristics within formalized learning spaces. This chapter introduces characteristics of an affinity space and questions the role of the framework in relation to another framework commonly used in online music-learning communities: communities of practice. This chapter concludes with a discussion on practical and theoretical applications of affinity space characteristics within formalized educational contexts.”
Author Keywords
Affinity space, music education, informal learning, online community, communities of practice
My One Sentence Summary
This chapter discuss applications of twelve characteristics of informal learning spaces within formalized educational contexts, such as computer science classrooms.
Questions to consider for each affinity space characteristic
Affinity spaces share a common endeavor
How might elementary CS classes encourage a multitude of identities such as gamer, actor, musician, creator, artist, composer, reviewer, performer, manufacturer, journalist, listener, student, teacher, and more within a shared space?
How might we encourage young coders to create projects for their peers or community?
How might young coders document these experiences in order to share processes, successes, and moments of growth or understanding?
How might young coders ask for or provide constructive critique on the projects we create in these spaces?
How might we engage in hyphenated forms of coding where young coders shift through a variety of identities and engagement (e.g., designer, artist, programmer, gamer, writer, etc.)?
How might we assess learning in a space with a multitude of CS related identities?
When is the focus on individualized, small group, or large group learning of coding concepts and understandings?
If young coders in a class do not share common interests with their peers, how might we utilize social media to connect them with other coders who share similar interests?
Affinity spaces are not segregated by age
How might coding classes or communities remove unnecessary segregation by age?
What should CS educators and facilitators consider when creating spaces with a broad range of ages?
How might people participate in CS spaces where young and old shift between roles of teacher and student?
How might CS sequences or cycles adapt or expand to include interaction or participation across age levels?
How might age-based classes or communities interact and learn with other classes of different age groups in either synchronous or asynchronous contexts?
In what ways might social platforms and networks assist with these forms of communication?
Affinity spaces are not segregated by experience
What kinds of expertise are valued in our classes or communities?
When are we unintentionally supporting a narrow understanding of what it means to be an expert in CS or coding?
What are potential affordances and constraints of segregating coders by experience or expertise?
How might those with more experience teach those with less, and when might these roles reverse?
How might proficient and novice coders communicate synchronously and asynchronously when scheduling, spatial, or geographic constraints prevent or limit communication?
Affinity spaces encourage, but do not require, active participation
What kinds of CS engagement “count” as participation within a CS/coding class or community?
What kinds of participation are required for members of a community or for a grade in a class?
Who can(not) participate in a space with prerequisite forms of engagement?
How diverse are the forms of participation over time in a CS/coding class or community?
What are the affordances and constraints of homogenous participation within a shared space?
What should educators or facilitators consider when designing educational spaces with a multitude of engagement?
How might social media augment engagement in such spaces?
Interaction transforms content within an affinity space
How might coders transform the educational spaces in which they interact?
In what ways might curricula change to reflect the interests of the coders who engage with them?
How might curriculum developers use social media to interact with, and respond to, the interests of the coders who use their curricula?
How might classes or communities adapt to reflect the diverse interests of the coders who participate in them?
Affinity spaces encourage both intensive and extensive knowledge
How might we encourage individualized expertise within group settings?
How might standards assist with or hinder individualized expertise?
What are the affordances and constraints of coding experiences focusing on generalized knowledge over individualized expertise?
How might we use social media within formalized learning spaces to cultivate individualized expertise?
Affinity spaces encourage individual and distributed knowledge
How might classes or communities cultivate individualized expertise within a shared space?
How might we utilize intensive knowledge within a group setting to augment collective, extensive knowledge?
What is the role of the educator or facilitator within a space like this?
How might social media assist with distributing knowledge beyond a class or community?
Affinity spaces encourage dispersed knowledge
How might coders utilize social media and other technologies to collect and curate resources from outside of coding classes or communities?
How might we use social media and other technologies to connect coding/CS classes or communities?
What must we consider when connecting with other coding/CS spaces across the world?
Affinity spaces encourage and honor tacit knowledge
How might coders demonstrate understanding within other classes or communities?
How might coding classes or communities unintentionally limit these kinds of demonstrations of understanding?
How might formalized assessments include multiple ways of demonstrating understanding?
Affinity spaces encourage a multitude of engagement
How might coding class and communities encourage a multitude of engagement within a shared space?
How might formalized educational spaces assess a multitude of engagement?
What are some affordances and constraints of requiring coders to participate in some ways more than others?
What does favoring assessment of one form of engagement over another imply about the perceived value of such engagement?
Affinity spaces have multiple routes to status
How might an educational space cultivate and encourage multiple routes to individualized expertise within a shared common endeavor?
How might we facilitate such a space?
How might we assess such diverse understandings across multiple routes to status?
Leadership is porous and leaders are resources
How might formalized spaces distribute leadership opportunities or encourage fluidity among roles as a leader and learner?
How might formalized spaces encourage democratic opportunities?
In what ways might the designated educator or facilitator shift roles within an educational space?
Resources/Links Relevant to This Episode
Other podcast episodes that were mentioned or are relevant to this episode
CS Educator as Dungeon Master with Jon Stapleton
In this interview with Jon Stapleton, we discuss metaphors for education and facilitating, the importance of community and navigating inappropriate content online, how programming languages and platforms influence learning, theories and philosophies that inform Jon’s practice, critical code studies, and much more.
Educational Aims, Objectives, and Other Aspirations
In this episode I unpack Eisner’s (2002) publication titled “Educational aims, objectives, and other aspirations,” which problematizes behavioral education objectives and discuss two alternative approaches.
Fostering Intersectional Identities through Rhizomatic Learning
In this episode, Jon Stapleton and I read our (2022) publication titled “Fostering intersectional identities through rhizomatic learning,” which uses mapping as a metaphor for individualized learning.
How to Get Started with Computer Science Education
In this episode I provide a framework for how districts and educators can get started with computer science education for free.
Lessons Learned from (In)Formal CS Education with Grant Smith
In this interview with Grant Smith, we discuss the importance of continuing to learn from other educators, what informal and formal learning spaces can learn from each other, how COVID has impacted Grant’s teaching philosophy, our preferences for in-person or virtual professional development and classroom instruction, lessons learned from entrepreneurial adventures in CS education, learning by jumping in and trying new things, heuristic-based learning, and so much more.
micro:bit, Rhizomatic Learning, and CS for Healing with Katie Henry
In this interview with Katie Henry, we discuss the micro:bit and the do your :bit challenge, rhizomatic learning, the potential for CS for healing, and much more.
In this episode I unpack Bowler and Champagne’s (2009) publication titled “Mindful makers: Question prompts to help guide young peoples' critical technical practices in maker spaces in libraries, museums, and community-based youth organizations,” which "examines question prompts as a means to scaffold reflection and reflexivity in the design, development, and use of technological artifacts in maker spaces for youth at public libraries, museums, and community-based organizations" (abstract).
Planning K-8 Computer Science through the UDL Framework
In this episode I unpack Israel, Lash, Bergeron, and Ray’s publication titled “Planning K-8 computer science through the UDL framework,” which discusses the potential for using Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in CS classes.
Rhizomatic Learning with Catherine Bornhorst, Jon Stapleton, and Katie Henry
In this panel discussion with Catherine Bornhorst, Jon Stapleton, and Katie Henry, we discuss what rhizomatic learning is and looks like in formalized educational spaces, affordances and constraints of rhizomatic learning, how to support individual students within a group setting, standards and rhizomatic learning, why few people know and use rhizomatic learning approaches, how to advocate for and learn more about rhizomatic learning, and much more.
Situated Language and Learning with Bryan Brown
In this interview Bryan Brown, we discuss the importance of language in education. In particular, we discuss the role of language in teaching and learning, discursive identity, situated language and learning, the importance of representation in education, the role of language on stress, how smartphones and virtual communication platforms (e.g., Zoom) could change learning, and many other topics relevant to CS education and learning.
Talking About [Computer Science]: Better Questions? Better Discussions!
In this episode I unpack Allsup and Baxter’s (2004) publication titled “Talking about music: Better questions? Better discussions!” which is a short article that discusses open, guided, and closed questions, as well as a framework for encouraging critical thinking through questions. Although this article is published in a music education journal, I discuss potential implications for computer science educators.
The Centrality of Curriculum and the Function of Standards: The Curriculum is a Mind-altering Device
In this episode I unpack Eisner’s (2002) publication titled “The centrality of curriculum and the function of standards: The curriculum is a mind-altering device,” which problematizes curricula and standards by discussing how both can deprofessionalize the field of education.
The Apprenticeship of Observation and Computer Science Education
In this episode I unpack the impact of an apprenticeship of observation and what computer science educators can do about it.
Using Questions That Guide Mathematical Thinking to Think Computationally
In this episode I discuss some example questions we can ask to encourage kids to think deeper about computer science and computational thinking by unpacking two papers on using guiding questions in mathematics education. The first paper paper by Way (2014) is titled “Using questioning to stimulate mathematical thinking” and the second paper by Pennant (2018) is titled “Developing a classroom culture that supports a problem-solving approach to mathematics.”
Learn more about chipmusic.org, the affinity space I investigated for my dissertation
Curricular content I’ve created that align with affinity space characteristics
Find other CS educators and resources by using the #CSK8 hashtag on Twitter
Free CS Resources I Have Created
More Content
