Community as Continuity

Third Spaces, Emergent Connectivity, and the Social Infrastructure of an Interdisciplinary Curriculum

Abstract

Curricular continuity is often addressed through course sequencing, prerequisites, learning outcomes, and the progressive development of technical or disciplinary competencies. These structures are necessary, but they are insufficient for interdisciplinary programs in which students must learn to connect methods, collaborators, tools, and projects across courses. This conceptual article argues that community should be understood as a form of curricular continuity. Persistent social and spatial structures can carry knowledge, identity, mentorship, and project memory across the formal boundaries of classes. Drawing on scholarship concerning situated learning, communities of practice, learning ecologies, third places, educational third spaces, boundary crossing, makerspaces, and student belonging, the article develops the concept of the curricular third space: a semi-structured environment located between formal coursework and private individual practice. It distinguishes the civic sociology of the third place from educational theories of third space while bringing both traditions into a deliberately synthetic framework. Such spaces can support cross-cohort visibility, distributed mentorship, project afterlives, specialization, and emergent collaboration. Their educational value, however, depends on intentional design. Informal environments can reproduce exclusion, hidden curricula, unpaid labor, and unequal access if community is treated as spontaneous or cost-free. The article concludes with design principles for building community as durable educational infrastructure and considers their application to an interdisciplinary immersive-media program.

Keywords: curricular continuity, third place, third space, communities of practice, interdisciplinary education, project-based learning, makerspaces, student belonging, specialization

Introduction

Universities organize education through courses. Courses make learning administratively manageable: they establish enrollments, schedules, instructors, credit hours, assignments, assessment, and a defined period of participation. Yet the experiences that matter most to students rarely respect those boundaries. A project may begin before a course and remain alive after it. A technical problem may be solved by someone who is not enrolled in the class. A student may discover an area of practice through observing advanced work rather than through a scheduled lesson. A collaboration may emerge because two people repeatedly encounter each other in a laboratory, attend the same public critique, or recognize a shared interest on a project wall.

This tension is especially visible in interdisciplinary creative-technology programs. Students move among programming, visual design, sound, physical computing, animation, games, artificial intelligence, immersive media, research, and production. They may be asked to integrate these practices in advanced collaborative studios or Capstone projects, even though the curriculum has presented them through separate courses, departments, and schedules. The formal curriculum can require a sequence, but it cannot by itself guarantee that students experience the sequence as cumulative.

The prevailing course-centric pattern is familiar:

Course → Project → Grade → Abandoned Project → Next Course → New Project

This pattern does not result only from poor assignment design. It is reinforced by the temporal and social architecture of the university. Courses end. Teams dissolve. Learning-management systems close. Access to facilities changes. Faculty attention moves to the next cohort. A student may retain the files from a project while losing the social network, tacit knowledge, critical conversation, and practical momentum that made further development possible.

Curricular reform often responds by strengthening prerequisites, aligning learning outcomes, or coordinating syllabi. These are important interventions. They can clarify what students should bring into a course and what they should carry forward. This article advances a complementary proposition: continuity is not only a property of the course sequence. It is also a property of the community surrounding that sequence.

Community is not an extracurricular supplement to curriculum. It is social infrastructure through which curriculum acquires memory, permeability, and duration.

When a program builds recurring, accessible, and visible environments for students to work alongside one another, it blurs the boundary between courses without erasing the pedagogical purposes of those courses. These environments create opportunities for emergent connectivity: relationships and exchanges that cannot be fully specified in advance but become possible because people, practices, artifacts, and questions remain in productive proximity.

The Limits of Course-Centric Continuity

Course coordination typically imagines continuity as a transfer of competencies. One course introduces a practice, another provides repeated application, an advanced course develops independence, and a Capstone demonstrates integration. This progression can be described as Introduced → Practiced → Advanced → Demonstrated. The model is valuable because it makes curricular gaps visible. It can reveal repeated introductions, missing intermediate practice, or advanced expectations for which students have not been prepared.

The model is less successful at representing the social conditions through which students make use of those competencies. A course may introduce version control, but students often learn how to use it effectively through repeated collaboration and peer troubleshooting. A course may introduce a game engine, but a student's deeper understanding may develop while helping another team debug a build. A studio may require critique, but the student's sense of artistic or technical identity may emerge through informal recognition from peers. A Capstone may require integration, but the network of collaborators needed to achieve that integration may have formed gradually across open labs, student organizations, shared work sessions, and earlier exhibitions.

Formal sequences also struggle with tacit knowledge. Many practices central to creative technology are difficult to reduce to explicit instruction: how to diagnose an unstable installation, scope an interactive project, prepare for an exhibition, recover from a corrupted build, communicate across artistic and technical roles, or recognize when an apparently technical problem is actually a conceptual one. Such knowledge is often acquired through observation, participation, stories, imitation, and repeated exposure to the work of others.

Lave and Wenger's account of situated learning challenged the idea that learning is primarily the acquisition of abstract knowledge by isolated individuals. Their concept of legitimate peripheral participation describes how newcomers learn by entering the practices of a community and gradually moving toward fuller forms of participation (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Wenger later developed this framework through the concept of communities of practice, emphasizing the relationship among shared practice, participation, meaning, and identity (Wenger, 1998).

From this perspective, curricular continuity cannot be understood only as the orderly transmission of content. It also concerns whether students remain connected to practices, people, and shared enterprises long enough to become recognizable participants within them.

From Third Place and Third Space to a Curricular Third Space

Oldenburg and Brissett used the term third place to describe recurring social environments outside the dominant domains of home and work. Such places derive their importance from voluntary gathering, regularity, informality, conversation, and the possibility of belonging beyond formal roles (Oldenburg & Brissett, 1982). A university program is not directly analogous to the civic environments they examined. Courses are institutional rather than private, and campus spaces remain shaped by academic authority, access rules, schedules, and assessment.

Nevertheless, the concept offers a useful provocation. What educational possibilities appear in a space that is neither fully a class nor merely a location students happen to occupy?

The educational concept of third space emerges from a different theoretical lineage and should not be treated as a synonym for third place. Third-space scholarship examines what can happen when practices, languages, identities, and forms of knowledge that are usually separated are brought into relation. Gutiérrez, Baquedano-López, and Tejeda describe third space as a hybrid learning environment in which competing cultural and linguistic practices can be reorganized to produce new forms of participation and understanding (Gutiérrez et al., 1999). Moje and colleagues similarly examine third space as a means of connecting disciplinary learning with students' everyday knowledge and discourse, arguing that the encounter can support integration while also transforming what counts as legitimate knowledge in the learning environment (Moje et al., 2004).

The distinction is consequential. A third place emphasizes recurring sociality outside dominant institutional settings. An educational third space emphasizes hybridity, mediation, and the production of new relations among practices. One helps explain why an informal gathering environment can sustain association. The other helps explain how encounters across boundaries can generate learning. The framework proposed here draws from both traditions without collapsing them.

The term curricular third space is used here as a synthetic concept to describe a semi-structured environment between formal coursework and private individual practice. It may be physical, digital, or hybrid. It may include an open laboratory, weekly work-in session, student-run studio, peer clinic, critique series, project showcase, shared repository, equipment orientation, research salon, game night, fabrication session, or informal demonstration. What distinguishes the space is not the absence of structure. It is a different relation to structure.

Participation is not organized primarily by a single course roster. Expertise is not distributed only from instructor to student. Projects can enter the space at different stages. Students from different cohorts can observe one another. Questions can persist beyond the time allotted to an assignment. The space remains connected to the curriculum while allowing relationships and activity to exceed course boundaries.

The curricular third space is therefore not outside the curriculum. It is adjacent to, permeable with, and partially constituted by it. Its educational function is not only to connect what the course structure necessarily separates, but also to make possible practices and relationships that none of the separated parts could produce alone.

Community as a Learning Ecology

Barron's learning-ecology perspective is useful for understanding how interest and expertise develop across settings rather than within a single instructional container. A learning ecology includes the relationships, activities, resources, and contexts through which people encounter and pursue opportunities to learn (Barron, 2006). From this perspective, the question is not merely whether a course teaches a competency. The question is whether students can locate that competency within a broader ecology that allows them to revisit it, apply it in new circumstances, meet others who value it, and use it to pursue self-directed goals.

An interdisciplinary program becomes more coherent when its ecology includes visible routes among classes, laboratories, peers, faculty, projects, public events, and professional communities. A student interested in game audio, for example, may encounter the topic in a sound course, observe a Capstone team implementing adaptive music, meet a programmer during an open lab, join a playtesting session, and later return to the original project with a more sophisticated role. No single encounter constitutes the specialization. The specialization develops through a pattern of connected participation.

Community, in this account, does not replace the curriculum. It increases the number of pathways through which curricular experiences can become cumulative.

Mechanisms of Community-Based Continuity

Cross-Cohort Visibility

Most courses group students by enrollment and level. This structure limits the ability of newer students to see what more advanced practice looks like. In a persistent community space, early-stage students can encounter advanced work before they are expected to produce it. They can observe the vocabulary, tools, standards, failures, and forms of collaboration that define fuller participation.

This visibility gives the curriculum a future tense. Capstone stops being an abstract requirement and becomes a body of work students can inspect. Specialization stops being a list of electives and becomes recognizable through people, artifacts, and ongoing projects. Students can imagine not only what they might take next, but who they might become.

Cross-cohort visibility also permits senior students to recognize their own development. Explaining a workflow, demonstrating a prototype, or advising a newer student turns tacit competence into articulated knowledge. Mentorship is therefore not only a service offered by advanced students. It can be a mode of advanced learning.

Distributed Mentorship

Course-centric education places mentorship primarily within the faculty-student relationship. Community spaces distribute mentorship across peers, near-peers, staff, alumni, visitors, and faculty whose courses a student may not yet have taken.

Near-peer mentorship is particularly valuable because the mentor's experience remains close enough to the learner's present difficulty to be legible. A senior who recently struggled with the same engine, critique format, or team conflict may provide a form of practical guidance different from faculty expertise. Conversely, students can receive help from someone outside their specialization, introducing methods or questions that would not have emerged within a homogeneous team.

Distributed mentorship also reduces the risk that a program's intellectual life depends entirely on scheduled access to a small number of faculty. It does not reduce the need for faculty labor, advising, or instruction. It broadens the social system through which students can receive recognition, feedback, and models of practice.

Project Afterlives

Projects need social afterlives as well as file storage. A repository can preserve code, assets, and documentation, but it cannot by itself sustain attention or desire. Projects remain alive when there are occasions to reopen them, audiences who remember them, spaces in which they can be displayed, and collaborators who can imagine a next stage.

Community spaces create several possible afterlives. A completed assignment may become a demonstration for another course. An abandoned prototype may be adopted, remixed, or recontextualized. A technical tool built for one project may become infrastructure for several others. An unsuccessful experiment may become useful evidence during a critique or workshop. A Capstone project may become a reference point for younger students rather than disappearing after exhibition.

This changes the meaning of completion. A project can be complete for the purposes of a course without being treated as finished in the life of the student or program.

Boundary Crossing

Interdisciplinary education depends on movement across domains, but course structures often stabilize those domains. Programming happens in one room, visual design in another, sound somewhere else, and professional preparation later. The student's task is to assemble the fragments.

Akkerman and Bakker's review of boundary crossing identifies learning mechanisms that can emerge when different practices encounter one another, including identification, coordination, reflection, and transformation (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011). Boundaries are not merely obstacles. Under appropriate conditions, they can become sites at which practices are clarified, translated, and altered.

Third spaces can make such boundary work routine. A programmer observing a physical-computing project may recognize a new application for a software tool. A sound student may reinterpret a game mechanic as an audio system. A visual artist may identify the social implications of an AI dataset that a technically focused team had treated as neutral. The value lies not only in combining skills after roles have been assigned. It lies in allowing the encounter among practices to reshape the project and the participants' understanding of their own expertise.

Identity and Belonging

Specialization is partly curricular and partly identificatory. A student becomes a game designer, creative technologist, sound artist, technical artist, researcher, or interaction designer not simply by completing a prescribed number of credits, but by participating in practices through which that identity becomes meaningful and recognized.

Wenger's formulation of learning joins practice to identity: participation changes both what people can do and who they understand themselves to be (Wenger, 1998). Scholarship on student belonging similarly emphasizes the importance of students' perceived connection to peers, environments, and institutional life (Strayhorn, 2012). A coherent community can provide repeated recognition that a student's interests have a place within the program.

This is particularly important in interdisciplinary programs, where students may not find an exact disciplinary mirror in a single course. Their identity may take shape through a constellation of relationships. The student who works between sound, code, and installation may appear unfocused within any one class but coherent within a community that values hybrid practice.

Shared Memory and Institutional Learning

Programs lose knowledge when each course and cohort starts over. Equipment lessons are relearned, production mistakes recur, working methods disappear, and exemplary projects survive only in faculty recollection. Community practices can create a form of institutional memory distributed across people and artifacts.

Project walls, demonstration archives, public postmortems, technical notes, student-led workshops, annotated repositories, and recurring showcase rituals can preserve more than finished products. They preserve process knowledge and narrative: what was attempted, what failed, what changed, and what the program learned.

Such memory is especially important in technologically intensive fields because tools change quickly. Durable knowledge often resides less in a fixed tutorial than in a community's accumulated capacity to investigate, adapt, and explain.

Emergent Connectivity

The term emergent connectivity is introduced here to describe relationships and collaborations that cannot be fully assigned in advance but become possible through repeated contact, visible work, shared resources, and permeable participation. It names a proposed outcome of the curricular third space rather than an established construct inherited from the literature.

Emergence should not be romanticized as spontaneous self-organization. Connectivity depends on conditions. People must have opportunities to encounter one another. Work must be visible enough to invite curiosity. Participation must be low-risk enough for newcomers to enter. The space must recur often enough for trust and recognition to develop. Tools and materials must be accessible. Someone must perform the labor of invitation, stewardship, scheduling, repair, mediation, and documentation.

The design problem is therefore paradoxical: create enough structure for continuity without scripting every connection.

Too little structure produces an empty room, an insider club, or a facility that students do not know how to use. Too much structure reproduces the course under another name. The curricular third space must be intentionally underdetermined. It has a rhythm, purpose, and shared norms, but it leaves room for participants to bring unfinished work, ask unscheduled questions, cross roles, and initiate activity.

Makerspaces and Learning Through Shared Production

Research on makerspaces offers a practical analogue. Sheridan and colleagues' comparative study described makerspaces as learning environments characterized by heterogeneous activity, multiple pathways into participation, shared tools, and combinations of formal and informal learning (Sheridan et al., 2014). The significance of such spaces lies not only in equipment access. It lies in the social organization of making: participants observe, exchange expertise, iterate publicly, and move among different forms of practice.

An immersive-media laboratory can function similarly, but only if it is more than a collection of bookable equipment. A room becomes a learning environment when students can see work in progress, encounter expertise, gain legitimate access, and return frequently enough to participate in a shared practice. A specialized facility that appears only during a scheduled demonstration may enrich a course. A facility integrated into a community can connect courses and cohorts.

The distinction matters for program planning. Investment in equipment does not automatically create curricular continuity. Community is the operating system through which resources become relational, visible, and reusable.

Community, Specialization, and the Student Journey

Formal specializations risk becoming administrative labels placed over elective combinations. Community gives a specialization social and material presence. Students can identify who is working in an area, which projects represent different levels of development, what tools and facilities are commonly used, what questions animate the field, and how their own interests might enter it.

A Game Design specialization, for example, requires more than a technical course and a list of recommended electives. It benefits from recurring playtesting, game nights organized around analysis rather than consumption, public prototypes, postmortems, peer recruiting, visiting developers, project archives, and cross-cohort production. These practices make iteration and player experience visible while creating a social context in which different roles can find one another.

An AI specialization likewise requires more than access to current models. A community context can support model and dataset clinics, public failure analysis, discussions of authorship and labor, demonstrations of local and cloud systems, collaborative experiments across media, and shared standards for provenance and disclosure. It can prevent AI practice from collapsing into isolated tool use by placing technical experimentation inside critical and creative conversation.

Community also helps students move between specializations. The objective is not to sort students permanently into bounded subgroups. Third spaces allow a student identified with one practice to participate peripherally in another, borrow methods, discover an unexpected collaborator, or revise their trajectory.

Designing Community as Infrastructure

If community is expected to support continuity, it must be treated as infrastructure rather than atmosphere. Several design principles follow.

Regularity Before Scale

A modest weekly work-in can be more valuable than an ambitious event held once each semester. Regularity allows recognition, trust, habit, and memory to accumulate. Students need to know not only that a space exists, but when activity will reliably occur.

Visibility of Process

Finished work communicates standards, but unfinished work invites participation. Project walls, open critiques, build demonstrations, shared logs, and works-in-progress displays allow students to encounter process rather than only polished outcomes. This makes struggle, revision, and technical uncertainty part of the program's public culture.

Multiple Thresholds of Participation

Students should be able to observe before presenting, ask a question without joining a team, contribute a small role without assuming project ownership, and return intermittently without being treated as outsiders. These thresholds support legitimate peripheral participation and make entry possible for students who are still developing confidence or identifying an area of interest.

Cross-Cohort and Cross-Role Contact

Community activity should not be segmented entirely by year or specialization. Advanced students, newcomers, artists, programmers, researchers, performers, and producers need recurring opportunities to encounter one another. Heterogeneity is not a logistical problem to be eliminated. It is a source of boundary learning.

Durable Artifacts

The community should preserve evidence of its work. Repositories, case studies, project cards, credits, technical notes, recordings, postmortems, and exhibition documentation enable future cohorts to inherit more than anecdotes. Artifacts can function as bridges among courses, people, and moments in a project's development.

Recognized Stewardship

Community does not maintain itself. Programs should identify and recognize the labor of student hosts, laboratory stewards, peer mentors, documentation leads, faculty coordinators, and staff. Where the work is substantial or necessary to program operations, it should be compensated, credited, or incorporated into formal roles.

Curricular Permeability

Faculty should make explicit how third-space participation can connect to coursework without turning every activity into an assignment. A class may attend an open critique, contribute documentation to a shared archive, invite community playtesting, or demonstrate work during a weekly session. These bridges make the community visible to students who would not discover it independently.

Public Rituals

Showcases, awards, demonstrations, premieres, open studios, and beginning-of-year or end-of-year gatherings create temporal anchors. They allow a program to witness itself. The most powerful rituals connect levels of participation: underclassmen see possible futures, advanced students receive recognition, alumni return, and external partners encounter the program through student work.

Equity, Access, and the Risks of Informality

Community is often described as inherently welcoming. It is not. Informal environments can intensify exclusion because their rules, rewards, and pathways to participation remain unspoken.

Students with employment, caregiving responsibilities, disabilities, long commutes, or limited evening availability may be unable to participate in activities scheduled outside class. Students who already possess technical confidence may dominate shared spaces. Social familiarity can become mistaken for competence. Equipment access may flow through friendships. Highly visible community members may receive more opportunities, while quieter students remain peripheral without a meaningful path inward.

These risks are not arguments against third spaces. They are arguments for designing them with the same seriousness applied to formal curriculum.

Access should include predictable scheduling, multiple participation formats, clear codes of conduct, transparent equipment procedures, introductory orientations, visible points of contact, and activities held at varied times. Digital participation and asynchronous documentation can extend access, though they should complement rather than merely simulate embodied community. Programs should monitor whose work is displayed, who receives mentorship, who performs maintenance labor, who speaks during critiques, and who advances into leadership.

Community must also not become an administrative substitute for courses, staff, advising, or technical support. Peer mentorship cannot justify under-resourcing. Student enthusiasm cannot be treated as free labor. An open lab cannot compensate for a curriculum that never provides guided instruction. The third space is connective infrastructure, not a mechanism for transferring institutional responsibility onto students.

Implications for Immersive Media Design

For an interdisciplinary immersive-media program, community as continuity suggests a shift in how several existing initiatives are understood.

An Innovation Design Lab should not be framed only as a room containing equipment. It can become the program's persistent social and creative hub through a regular work-in culture, visible student work, open demonstrations, peer support, and modest resources for recurring activity. Its value would lie in the density of meaningful encounters it supports, not only in equipment utilization.

Project continuity from IMDM290 through IMDM390 and Senior Capstone would benefit from shared social infrastructure. Course handoff documents can preserve files, research, critique, and next steps. Community spaces can preserve the relationships and attention that make those materials actionable. A student leaving IMDM290 with a promising prototype might encounter future collaborators, test the work with new audiences, or continue a technical question before enrolling in the next formal studio.

Portfolio development can likewise become a community practice rather than a private task assigned late in the curriculum. Regular documentation reviews, project-story workshops, public works-in-progress, and peer case-study critique can help students recognize a body of work as it forms. Specialization becomes legible when students and others can see patterns across that work.

The Senior Capstone Showcase can function as the program's anchor ritual. Its educational value extends beyond the graduating cohort when underclassmen, alumni, faculty, staff, and external partners participate. The event makes curricular trajectories public and gives the community a shared object around which memory, aspiration, and critique can gather.

DC field trips, visiting practitioners, alumni talks, game jams, research salons, and informal events can expand the third space beyond a single room. Their continuity depends on connection back to the community. A field trip becomes more educationally durable when students return to a shared setting in which the experience can be discussed, connected to projects, and translated into further activity.

Evaluating Community-Based Continuity

Community should not be evaluated only through attendance. A crowded event may create less continuity than a small recurring session in which projects and relationships develop over time.

Evaluation should examine several dimensions:

• whether students from different cohorts and tracks participate;
• whether newcomers have clear and varied entry points;
• whether projects continue, transform, or circulate across courses;
• whether students receive mentorship beyond their current instructors;
• whether facilities become more accessible and instructionally meaningful;
• whether students can identify areas of expertise and communities connected to them;
• whether portfolio documentation develops earlier and more consistently;
• whether knowledge is preserved through archives, postmortems, and demonstrations;
• whether participation is equitable across schedules, identities, roles, and levels of prior experience; and
• whether the labor required to sustain the community is visible and supported.

These forms of evidence can be gathered through participation records, network and collaboration maps, project histories, student reflections, portfolio reviews, interviews, artifact analysis, and longitudinal tracking. The aim is not to convert informal community into another heavily assessed course. It is to determine whether the infrastructure is actually producing continuity rather than merely projecting an image of activity.

Discussion

The argument for community as continuity does not diminish the importance of curricular alignment. Prerequisites, learning outcomes, syllabus language, portfolio milestones, and coherent course sequences remain essential. Community works with these structures by extending their temporal and social reach.

Courses can state what should transfer. Communities create additional conditions through which transfer becomes likely. Courses can authorize students to continue prior work. Communities can help that work find attention, collaborators, and new contexts. Courses can identify specialization competencies. Communities can make those competencies visible as practices and identities. Courses can require Capstone documentation. Communities can preserve the knowledge produced through Capstone for future cohorts.

This suggests a broader account of curricular design. A curriculum is not only an arrangement of courses. It is also an arrangement of encounters, resources, relationships, artifacts, and public occasions. Some of these can be scheduled and assessed. Others must remain open enough for students to make connections that the curriculum's designers could not have predicted.

The objective is not to dissolve courses into an unstructured community. The course provides focus, responsibility, expertise, and equitable access to guided learning. The third space provides permeability, recurrence, and social memory. Their relationship should be complementary.

Conclusion

Course-centric thinking treats continuity as movement from one bounded instructional unit to the next. Community-based thinking asks what persists between those units.

What persists may be a project, a question, a collaborator, a tool, an archive, a mentor, a role, a place, or an emerging sense of identity. Third spaces bring these elements into relation. They allow students to participate across cohorts, encounter unfamiliar practices, keep unfinished work visible, and recognize possible futures in the work of others.

Community is therefore not only a matter of student engagement or program culture. It is a mechanism through which an interdisciplinary curriculum becomes more than the sum of its courses.

If courses carry credit, community carries memory. If courses establish expectations, community creates pathways among them. If specializations name areas of depth, community gives those areas people, practices, and places in which to become real.

The practical question for a program is not whether community will emerge. Some form of community always will. The question is whether the institution will create equitable conditions under which that community can function as continuity.

References

Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311404435

Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A learning ecology perspective. Human Development, 49(4), 193–224. https://doi.org/10.1159/000094368

Gutiérrez, K. D., Baquedano-López, P., & Tejeda, C. (1999). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6(4), 286–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039909524733

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355

Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, K. M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38–70. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.39.1.4

Oldenburg, R., & Brissett, D. (1982). The third place. Qualitative Sociology, 5(4), 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00986754

Sheridan, K. M., Halverson, E. R., Litts, B. K., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L., & Owens, T. (2014). Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 505–531. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.4.brr34733723j648u

Strayhorn, T. L. (2012). College students' sense of belonging: A key to educational success for all students. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203118924

Tinto, V. (2012). Completing college: Rethinking institutional action. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226804545.001.0001

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932