RE: LBE and 'community' category

From: Cunningham, Donald (cunningh@indiana.edu)
Date: Fri May 11 2001 - 17:32:52 PDT


Boy, Bill, this is exactly what I mean. What you describe sounds more like
a committee than a community to me. I guess I have been reading far to much
into the concept of community in CHAT. Time to re-structure!

djc

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Barowy [mailto:wbarowy@lesley.edu]
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 5:35 PM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: RE: LBE and 'community' category

It was a quick note and not well explained, but you have caught me in the
middle of adapting the model -- work in progress. I don't actually use the
word 'group'. The way I am adapting the model, is to think of the
'community' category as a way to capture the next level up in the hierarchy,
and hence the next level of analysis. The hierarchy is the way we, who are
within the system, characterize the organization of our institution, for
example the level of accountability. So for example, a course is taught
here within a program (or 'division'), so the triangle represents more or
less well, the system of the course (I'm refering to a particular section --
not the generically designed 'course', but one taking one semester and
enacted by an ensemble of students and an instructor). A triangle may
represent one section of the science course in the elementary program.

'community' within that triangle captures how that course is woven into the
next level up the hierarchy, i.e the program in which the course is taught.
An instance of this level is the elementary education program. A second
triangle represents the program, and in turn its community category
capturing the next level up on the hierarchy of the school, i.e school of
education. The Sch. of Ed. is related in turn, through community in its
triangle to the university. The model is iterative and it scales.

Community as I have begun to apply it, can be thought to be fairly broad at
any level, and indeed, for any course, there is sometimes a group of
instructors who irregularly meet, (subject category in the triangle the next
level up) and who could be considered part of the program 'community' for
any instance of teaching the course. But the instructors do meet
irregularly, and, it is plausible that using an adaptation of Barker's
interdependence rating that they do not contribute as heavily to shaping any
instance of teaching a course as do other aspects of the
'community'-become-activity-system of the program. But keeping 'community'
more or less confined to those within the university, school, program for
each of their embedded levels, keeps the analysis fairly neat. And it is
after all a model, just a model, to capture the complexity and
interrelatedness, and non-linearity of cause and effect within the
institution. What I mean by 'more or less' is that we must address state
mandates for teacher competencies, and so the state, outside the university,
contributes to 'rules'. An exception to a clean model.

bb

>Bill, what criteria did you use to judge some group to be a community? I
>assume, in asking this, that not all groups or collectives are communities.
>Is that a valid assumption?
>
>djc
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bill Barowy [mailto:wbarowy@mail.lesley.edu]
>Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 12:29 PM
>To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>Subject: LBE and 'community' category
>
>
>Just a quick comment, Don, about the category 'community' and the triangle.
> I'll be doing a presentation in DC at the end of the month about the
>systemic changes at LU that would coincide with the adoption of computer
>modeling practices here (for a DoE grant). The 'model' I'll be using is
>the triangle, and 'community' allows the analysis of one triangle being
>embedded within another,
>
>i.e. classroom->program->school->university
>
>in what might look rather fractal in form, if drawn completely. It is not
>the only way to break out triangles hierarchically. For example lbe chpat
>2 breaks them out differently into 'subject producing', 'artifact
>producing' and so on. But the one i have chosen captures well the
>hierarchical organizaiton of the university, and provides a way to
>understand the points of friction and leverage within a large institution
>that is durable in many ways. (If not the institution, then at least the
>model is pliable.)
>
>Basically a small team of us have adopted this model to help us think
>through what strategies will be proactive and effective within our
>university setting.
>
>bb
>
>Bill Barowy, Associate Professor,
>Lesley University, 29 Everett Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-2790
>Phone: 617-349-8168 / Fax: 617-349-8169
>http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/wbarowy/Barowy.html

-- 
Bill Barowy, Associate Professor
Lesley University
29 Everett Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-2790 
Phone: 617-349-8168  / Fax: 617-349-8169
http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/wbarowy/Barowy.html
_______________________
"One of life's quiet excitements is to stand somewhat apart from yourself
 and watch yourself softly become the author of something beautiful."
[Norman Maclean in "A river runs through it."]



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 01 2001 - 01:01:23 PDT