# foreward.md
I was invited to lecture at UC Berkeley in January, 2012, and to involve
their faculty and their graduate students in some kind of seminar, so [I
told the story of how I've used social media in teaching and
learning](http://vimeo.com/35685124) - and invited them to help me
create a handbook for self-learners.
I called it the Peeragogy Handbook. I met twice on the Berkeley campus
in the weeks following the lecture with about a dozen Berkeley faculty
and graduate students. We also had a laptop open with Elluminate, an
online platform that enabled video chatting and text chat, enabling
people around the world who were interested in the subject, who I
recruited through Twitter and email, to also participate in this
conversation. All of the faculty and grad students at Berkeley dropped
out of the project, but we ended up with about two dozen people, most of
them educators, several of them students, in Canada, Belgium, Brazil,
Germany, Italy, Mexico, the UK, USA, and Venezuela who ended up
collaborating on a voluntary effort to create this Peeragogy Handbook,
at [peeragogy.org](http://peeragogy.org/). We all shared an interest in
the question: “If you give more and more of your power as a teacher to
the students, can't you just eliminate the teacher all together, or
can't people take turns being the facilitator of the class?”
Between the time nine years ago, when I started out using social media
in teaching and learning, clearly there's been an explosion of people
learning things together online via Wikipedia and YouTube, MOOCs and
Quora, Twitter and Facebook, Google Docs and video chat, and I don't
really know what's going to happen with the institutions, but I do know
that this wild learning is happening and that some people are becoming
more expert at it.
I started trying to learn programming this summer, and I think that
learning programming and doing programming must be very, very different
now from before the Web, because now, if you know the right question to
ask, and you put it into a search query, there's someone out there on
StackOverflow who is already discussing it. More and more people are
getting savvy to the fact that you don't have to go to a university to
have access to all of the materials, plus media that the universities
haven't even had until recently. What's missing for learners outside
formal institutions who know how to use social media is useful lore
about how people learn together without a teacher. Nobody should ever
overlook the fact that there are great teachers. Teachers should be
trained, rewarded, and sought out. But it’s time to expand the focus on
learners, particularly on self-learners whose hunger for learning hasn’t
been schooled out of them.
I think that we're beginning to see the next step, which is to develop
the methods -- we certainly have the technologies, accessible at the
cost of broadband access -- for self-learners to teach and learn from
each other more effectively. Self-learners know how to go to YouTube,
they know how to use search, mobilize personal learning networks. How
does a group of self-learners organize co-learning?
In the Peeragogy project, we started with a
[wiki](http://socialmediaclassroom.com/host/peeragogy/) and then we
decided that we needed to have a mechanism for people who were
self-electing to write articles on the wiki to say, OK, this is ready
for editing, and then for an editor to come in and say, this is ready
for Wordpress, and then for someone to say, this has been moved to
WordPress. We used a forum to hash out these issues and met often via
Elluminate, which enabled us to all use audio and video, to share
screens, to text-chat, and to simultaneously draw on a whiteboard. We
tried Piratepad for a while. Eventually we settled on WordPress as our
publication platform and moved our most of our discussions to Google+.
It was a messy process, learning to work together while deciding what,
exactly it was we were doing and how we were going to go about it. In
the end we ended up evolving methods and settled on tools that worked
pretty well. We tackled key questions and provided resources for dealing
with them: How you want to govern your learning community? What kinds of
technologies do you want to use, and why, and how to use them? How are
learners going to convene, what kind of resources are available, and are
those resources free or what are their advantages and disadvantages. We
were betting that if we could organize good responses to all these
questions, a resource would prove to be useful: Here's a resource on how
to organize a syllabus or a learning space, and here are a lot of
suggestions for good learning activities, and here's why I should use a
wiki rather than a forum. We planned the Handbook to be an open and
growable resource -- if you want to add to it, join us! The purpose of
all this work is to provide a means of lubricating the process of
creating online courses and/or learning spaces.
Please use this handbook to enhance your own peer learning and please
join our effort to expand and enhance its value. The people who came
together to create the first edition -- few of us knew any of the
others, and often people from three continents would participate in our
synchronous meetings -- found that creating the Handbook was a training
course and experiment in peeragogy. If you want to practice peeragogy,
here’s a vehicle. Not only can you use it, you can expand it, spread it
around. Translators have already created versions of the first edition
of the handbook in Spanish, and Italian and work is in progress to bring
these up to date with the current second edition of the book, and we’ve
added a Portuguese translation team as well. More translators are
welcome.
What made this work? Polycentric leadership is one key. Many different
members of the project stepped up at different times and in different
ways and did truly vital things for the project. Currently, over 30
contributors have signed the CC Zero waiver and have material in the
handbook; over 600 joined our Peeragogy in Action community on G+; and
over 1000 tweets mention peeragogy.org. People clearly like the concept
of peeragogy -- but a healthy number of these people also like
participating in the process.
We know that this isn’t the last word. We hope it’s a start. We invite
new generations of editors, educators, learners, media-makers,
web-makers, and translators to build on our foundation.
Howard Rheingold\
Marin County\
January, 2014
# introduction.md
**Welcome to the Peeragogy Handbook!**
Peeragogy is a collection of techniques for collaborative learning and
collaborative work. By learning how to "work smart" together, we hope to
leave the world in a better state than it was when we arrived.
Indeed, humans have always learned from each other. But for a long time
-- until the advent of the Web and widespread access to digital media --
schools have had an effective monopoly on the business of learning. Now,
with access to open educational resources and free or inexpensive
communication platforms, groups of people can learn together outside as
well as inside formal institutions. All of this prompted us to
reconsider the meaning of "peer learning."
The *Peeragogy Handbook* isn't a normal book. It is an evolving guide,
and it tells a collaboratively written story that *you* can help write.
Using this book, you will develop new norms for the groups you work with
--- whether online, offline, or both. Every section includes practical
ideas you can apply to build and sustain strong and exciting
collaborations. When you read the book, you will get to know the authors
and will see how we have applied these ideas: in classrooms, in
research, in business, and more.
You'll meet Julian, one of the directors of a housing association;
Roland, a professional journalist and change-maker; Charlie, a language
teacher and writer who works with experimental media for fun and profit;
and Charlotte, an indie publisher who wants to become better at what she
does by helping others learn how to do it well too --- as well as many
other contributors from around the globe.
The book focuses on techniques for [convening a strong
group](http://peeragogy.org/convene/ "Convene"), [organizing a learning
space](http://peeragogy.org/organize/ "Organize"), [doing cooperative
work](http://peeragogy.org/cowork/ "Cowork"), and [conducting effective
peer assessment](http://peeragogy.org/assessment/ "Assess"). These major
sections are complemented by a catalog of design patterns and notes on
relevant technologies.
The next section is a guide to using the book, but, in brief, if you're
reading this book on peeragogy.org, please use the comment feature to
share your thoughts, and if you're reading it on paper, get out your pen
and start making notes. The best way to get something out of Peeragogy
is to put a lot into it. We are always interested in more case studies,
and anything that will improve the presentation and usefulness of this
material, so please don't hesitate to [get in
touch](http://peeragogy.org/contact/ "Contact Us").
googleacbac2db70ae2a56
# howto.md
This document is a practical guide to co-learning, a living document
that invites comment and invites readers to join the community of
editors. The document does not have to be read in linear order from
beginning to end. Material about conceptualizing and convening
co-learning -- the stuff that helps with getting started -- is located
toward the top of the table of contents. Material about use cases,
resources, and assessment is located toward the bottom. Hop around if
you'd like.
We've focused on "hands-on" techniques, and you'll probably want to try
things out with your own groups and networks as you read.
- If you want a starter syllabus, check out “[Peeragogy in
Action](http://peeragogy.org/peeragogy-in-action/)” in the resources
section.
- If you want to delve directly into the research literature, our
initial literature survey forms the basis of a [Wikipedia
article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_learning), and the book
also includes additional [recommended
readings](http://peeragogy.org/recommended-reading/ "Recommended Reading").
- For something lighter, many pages in the online version of the book
include short introductory videos, most of them under one minute
long. You can do a [search on
YouTube](http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=peeragogy&sm=3)
to find these and many of our other videos all in one place.
This is a living document. If you want to join in, just let us know in
our [G+
community](https://plus.google.com/communities/107386162349686249470).
(which also happens to have the name *Peeragogy in Action*). If you want
to test the waters first, feel free to use the comment thread attached
to each page on peeragogy.org to suggest any changes or additions, and
to share a bit about your story. We might quote you in future versions
of the book to help improve the resource for others, like this:
**John Glass**: Reading through the handbook, it strikes me that the
users will be fairly sophisticated folks. They will have ample knowledge
of various tech platforms, resources, a fair amount of formal education,
access and ability to use a number of different gadgets. My dilemma is
that I am thinking that Peeragogy, at its most basic, seems to be about
facilitating P2P learning. As such, at its most basic, it would be about
assisting people to work together to learn something (and for me,
learning encompasses virtually all human behavior, with the possible
exception of that controlled by the autonomic nervous system and even
there I am not sure). In other words, I am thinking it is about helping
anyone learn through partnership with others (group *A*) and yet the
handbook appears to be geared toward a rather specialized group of
people (group *B*). I guess what I am looking for is perhaps some
clarification on who is the intended audience, *A* or *B*? As it stands,
I am unsure how it could realistically apply to *A*...Thanks.
**Joe Corneli**: I think that the best thing to do is to do this in
dialog. In addition to groups *A* and *B*, we might need a group *C*,
who would mediate between the two. The assignment would be something
like this: "Use this to structure the class, and if you get stuck at any
point or if you think the resource isn't the right one, ask me for help,
and we'll work on finding other solutions together." At the end of the
semester, you might have a new and very different book tailored to this
particular "audience" (or "public" to use Howard's term)! That would be
cool. The current book definitely isn't a one-size-fits-all -- I'd say
it's more like a sewing machine. In fact, I think group *C* is the real
"public" for this book -- not experts, but people who will say: "How can
I use the ideas and the process here to do something new?" What people
do with it will definitely depend on the goal: the model might be *Stand
and Deliver* or it might be *Good Will Hunting* or it may be something
very different. Our long-term goal is not to build a 1000 page version
of the handbook, but to serve as a "hub" that can help many different
peer learning projects. The first question is: How can we improve the
usability for you? Rather than tackling the whole book all at once, I
would recommend that we start by dialoging about the “[Peeragogy in
Action](http://peeragogy.org/peeragogy-in-action/ "Peeragogy in action")”
syllabus at the end. How would we have to tailor that to suit the needs
of your students? With that in mind, another useful starting point might
be our article on [the student authored
syllabus](http://peeragogy.org/the-student-authored-syllabus/ "The student authored syllabus").
Finally, our motto for the book is: “*This is a How-To Handbook*.” We
can talk more about anything that's confusing and get rid of or
massively revise anything that's not useful. That's a super-micro guide
to doing peeragogy.
[](http://peeragogy.org/how-to-use-this-handbook/guy2/)
# summaries.md
[caption id="" align="aligncenter"
width="304"][](http://peeragogy.org/chapter-summaries/moonshine/)
Distilled for your convenience[/caption]
### Peering into Learning
This is a quick introduction to the main ideas used in the rest of the
book. It provides a range of things to think about as you get started
with a new peer learning project, or as you use peeragogy to redesign
and reassess an existing collaboration. You’ll probably want to read
this first and then do some reflection before diving into the other
parts of the book. **MOTIVATION** You might wonder why we’re doing this
project -- what we hope to get out of it as volunteers, and how we think
what we’re doing can make a positive difference in the world. Hopefully
this chapter will satisfy your curiousity, and show why peeragogy is
important. Have a look at this chapter if you, too, are thinking about
getting involved in peeragogy, or wondering how peeragogy can help you
accelerate your own learning projects. **CASE STUDY: 5PH1NX** We enjoy
riddles with more than one answer, so we’ve included this detailed
narrative example of peeragogy in action near the beginning of the book.
Explore this case study for ideas and encouragement for your own
learning adventures.
### Peeragogy in practice: Patterns, use cases, and examples
**PEERAGOGY IN PRACTICE** In this chapter we show some of the signposts
that can serve as both a key and compass to the kind of social problem
solving that happens in peeragogy projects. If you want some underlying
components to try out, mix and match these and experiment with peeragogy
right away. **THINKING IN PATTERNS, PATTERN HEURISTICS** Here we provide
an overview and examples of what patterns are and what they are used
for, and we outline and investigate patterns and antipatterns that apply
to Peeragogy. You come back for a deeper understanding of the processes
we talk about later on. *Patterns* provide a framework that can be
applied to issues or situations that have repeated effects. Here we
detail those that we have drawn from our own peeragogy practice, that
are also relevant to p2p production projects in general such as
introducing new comers, outlining roles, creating guides or roadmaps,
polling for ideas, and more. *Anti-patterns* deal with frequent
occurrences that are not desirable that apply to peeragogy and peer
production as well such as messiness with lurkers, isolation or weak
ties, distribution of power, navel gazing, and more. *Use cases* present
a scenario or story with actors, actions, and outcomes. These scenarios
provide a platform for examining outcomes patterns or anti-patterns. The
parameters of use cases can be manipulated to establish best paths to
success.
### Convening a Group
You’ll probably want to use this chapter to organize your thinking as
you start a new peeragogy project or think about how to apply peeragogy
ideas in an existing collaboration. A few clusters of simple but
important questions will inspire unique answers for you and your group.
We hope these mental frameworks are helpful to not only initiate
progress, but also to maintain momentum. **PLAY & LEARNING** What makes
learning fun? Just as actors learn their roles through the dynamic
process of performance, In other words, the more we engage with a topic,
the better we learn it and the more satisfying - or fun - the process
becomes. **K-12 PEERAGOGY** The key to becoming a successful ‘connected
educator-learner’ involves spending the time needed to learn how to
learn and share in an open, connected environment. Once you make the
decision to enter into a dialogue with another user, you become a
connected educator/learner and tap into the power of networks to
distribute the load of learning. Depending on their age, you can even
facilitate an awareness of peer networks among your students. **P2P
SELF-ORGANIZING LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS** This conversational section
engages you in a journey through diverse points of entry that interact
with your physical learning space. Within this chapter of word and
picture images, the emerging structure and reciprocal mentoring that may
be inspired causes a ripple effect on those who open the door to its
possibilities.
### Organizing a learning context
We talk about how peer learning is organized into "courses" and
"spaces", again drawing on our experience in the peeragogy project. We
present the results of an informal poll that reveals some of the
positive and some of the negative features of our early choices.
**ADDING STRUCTURE WITH ACTIVITIES** The first rule of thumb for peer
learning is: announce activities only when you plan to take part as a
fully engaged participant. Then ask a series of questions: what is the
goal, what makes it challenging, what worked in other situations, what
recipe is appropriate, what is different about learning about this
topic? **STUDENT AUTHORED SYLLABUS** Here’s one place you might explore
to see ways in which freedom in student-directed learning complements
the structural needs for the content and group. Check this out for
various methods to welcome ambiguity and co-created curriculum into your
projects. You may want to start with one or two ideas in an activity to
transition into this format, yet embracing the risk on a larger scale is
fun as well. **CONNECTIVISM IN PRACTICE** Massive Open Online Courses
(MOOCs) are decentralized online learning experiences: individuals and
groups create blogs or wikis and comment on each other's work, often
with a focus on where to find information. A course typically has a
topic, activities, reading resources and a guest speaker for each week.
Items are tagged to allow for aggregation. Links to technology resources
are provided (such as gRSShopper from Stephen Downes). **PARTICIPATION**
Participation grows from having a community of people who learn
together, using a curriculum as a starting point to organize and trigger
engagement. Keep in mind that participation may follow the 90/9/1
principle (lurkers/editors/authors) and that people may transition
through these roles over time. **THE WORKSCAPE** In a corporate
workscape, people are free-range learners: protect the learning
environment, provide nutrients for growth, and let nature take its
course. A workscape features profiles, an activity stream, wikis,
virtual meetings, blogs, bookmarks, mobile access and a social network.
### Introduction to Cooperation: Co-facilitation
Sometimes omitting the figurehead empowers a group. Co-facilitation
tends to work in groups of people who gather to share common problems
and experiences. The chapter suggests how to co-facilitate discussions,
wiki workflows, and live sessions. Conducting an "after action review"
helps to avoid blind spots. **CO-WORKING** Since statistics indicate a
small percentage of people make a disproportionately large contribution
it comes to getting things done, we've provided some strategies that
distribute engagement. **DESIGNING PEER LEARNING PLATFORMS** This case
study of PlanetMath highlights the five categories of activity (Context,
Engagement, Quality, Structure, and Heuristic) and the workings of the
correction mechanism. **CASE STUDY: COLLABORATIVE EXPLORATIONS** You can
try out this chapter to encourage individuals pursuing their own
interests in a predetermined topic while at the same time influencing
the learning of the whole group by sharing and reflecting upon their
findings. These interactions of supportive mutual inquiry evolve the
content and structure within a short time frame and with open-ended
results.
### Assessment
Asking questions about assessment in the context of the Handbook (Who
needs to know? Based on what data? In what format?) suggests
"usefulness" (real problems solved) is an appropriate metric. We use the
idea of return on investment (the value of changes in behavior divided
by the cost of inducing the change) to assess the peeragogy project
itself, as one example. **RESEARCHING PEERAGOGY** Three new patterns are
introduced (Frontend and Backend, Spanning Set, and Minimum Viable
Project) which form the basis of a “meta-model” that can be used to
study and design for peer learning.
### Technologies, Services, and Platforms
Issues of utility, choice, coaching, impact and roles attach to the wide
variety of tools and technologies available for peer learning. Keys to
selection include the features you need, what people are already using,
and the type of tool (low threshold, wide wall, high ceilings) used for
collaboration. **FORUMS** Forums are web-based communication media that
enable groups of people to conduct organized multimedia discussions
about multiple topics over a period of time, asynchronously. A rubric
for evaluating forum posts highlights the value of drawing connections.
The chapter includes tips on selecting forum software. **WIKI** A wiki
is a website whose users can add, modify, or delete its content via a
web browser. Pages have a feature called “history” which allows users to
see previous versions and roll back to them. The chapter includes tips
on how to use a wiki and select a wiki engine, with particular attention
to peer learning opportunities. **REAL-TIME MEETINGS** Web services
enable broadband-connected learners to communicate in real time via
audio, video, slides, whiteboards, chat, and screen-sharing. Possible
roles for participants in real-time meetings include searchers,
contextualizers, summarizers, lexicographers, mappers, and curators.
This mode of interaction supports emergent agendas.
### Resources
Here we present several ways to get involved in peer learning, including
information about where to find the Peeragogy project online, a sample
syllabus with four actions bring peer learning to life, tips on writing
for The Handbook, and our Creative Commons Zero 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0)
Public Domain Dedication.
# peer-learning.md
> The aim of the *Peeragogy Handbook* is to establish effective
> peer-learning techniques that you can implement "on the ground." We
> suggest that you look through the Handbook, try a few of these
> suggestions, and see how they work for you. Then we invite you share
> your experiences, ask for feedback, and work with us to improve the
> Handbook and the field we affectionately call "Peeragogy."
>
> In this part of the *Peeragogy Handbook*, we "peeragogues" have
> summarised the most important and applicable research and insights
> from two years of inquiry and discussion. Although there's been no
> shortage of experimentation and formal research into collaborative,
> connective, and shared learning systems in the past, there is a new
> rumbling among education thinkers that suggests that when combined
> with new platforms and technologies, peer-learning strategies as
> described here could have a huge impact on the way educational
> institutions evolve in the future. We've also seen for ourselves how
> peer-learning techniques can help anyone who's interested to become a
> more effective informal educator.
## The interplay of individual and group
“Personal” supports “peer”. We can consciously cultivate living,
growing, responsive webs of information, support, and inspiration that
help us be more effective learners. This is known as a personal learning
network. We’ll offer tips on how to build these networks — and we’ll
also explain how strong personal learning networks can contribute to and
evolve into even stronger peer learning networks.
“Peer” supports “personal”. As we work together to develop shared plans
for our collective efforts in group projects, we usually can find places
where we have something to learn. Furthermore, if we are willing to ask
for help and offer our help to others, everybody’s learning escalates.
Being mindful of effective interpersonal learning patterns is an
important part of building an effective personal learning plan.
## Peer learning through the ages
As you will have guessed, our new term, peeragogy, is a riff on the word
pedagogy — the art, science, or profession of teaching. Pedagogy has a
somewhat problematic origin: it comes from the ancient Greek tradition
of having a child (paidos) be supervised (agogos) by a slave. Greek
philosophers seem to have disagreed about to the best way for
individuals to gain knowledge (and even more so, wisdom). Socrates, who
insisted that he was not wise, also insisted that his interlocutors join
him in investigating truth claims, as peers. And yet, Plato, the most
famous of these interlocutors and the best-known author of Socratic
dialogs, in his most famous allegory of the cave, has Socrates say, with
a modest but clearly pedagogical bent:
> **Socrates**: This entire allegory, I said, you may now append, dear
> Glaucon, to the previous argument; the prison-house is the world of
> sight, the light of the fire is the sun, and you will not misapprehend
> me if you interpret the journey upwards to be the ascent of the soul
> into the intellectual world according to my poor belief, which, at
> your desire, I have expressed—whether rightly or wrongly God knows.
> But, whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of
> knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with
> an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author
> of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of
> light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and
> truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he
> who would act rationally either in public or private life must have
> his eye fixed.
In more recent centuries, various education theorists and reformers have
challenged the effectiveness of what had become the traditional
teacher-led model. Most famous of the early education reformers in the
United States was John Dewey, who advocated new experiential learning
techniques. In his 1916 book, *Democracy and Education* [1], Dewey
wrote, “Education is not an affair of ‘telling’ and being told, but an
active and constructive process.” Soviet psychologist Lev Vygotsky, who
developed the concept of the Zone of Proximal Development, was another
proponent of “constructivist” learning. His book, *Thought and Language*
[2] also gives evidence to support collaborative, socially meaningful,
problem-solving activities as opposed to isolated exercises.
Within the last few decades, things have begun to change very rapidly.
In "Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age," George Siemens
argues that technology has changed the way we learn, explaining how it
tends to complicate or expose the limitations of the learning theories
of the past [3]. The crucial point of connectivism is that the
connections that make it possible for us to learn in the future are more
relevant than the knowledge we hold individually in the present.
Technology can, to some degree and in certain contexts, replace "know
how" with "know where to look."
[caption id="" align="aligncenter"
width="461"][](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Platon_Cave_Sanraedam_1604.jpg)
[Platon Cave Sanraedam
(1604)](http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Platon_Cave_Sanraedam_1604.jpg&oldid=68567627 "Plato's Allegory of the Cave, Engraving by Jan Sanraedam").
By Jan Saenredam [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons[/caption]
## From peer learning to peeragogy
The idea that we needed a new theory (which we initially gave the name
"paragogy" [4]) arose out of the challenges we faced doing peer
learning. Our aim was to understand how groups and organizations can
become better at serving participants’ interests, while participants
also learn and become better contributors.
Paragogy began as a set of proposed principles that describe peer
produced peer learning -- we’ll say what these principles are just
below. We designed them to contrast with a set guidelines for adult
educators advanced by Malcolm Knowles [5]. The paragogy principles focus
on the way in which co-learners shape their learning context together.
Very likely, there will be no educator anywhere in sight. And just for
this reason, peer produced peer learning is something for “innovative
educators” everywhere. You don’t need to have the word teacher, trainer,
or educator in your job title. It’s enough to ask good questions.
The paragogy principles aim to make that more explicit. They advocate
for an approach to peer learning in which:
1. Changing context is a decentered center.
2. Meta-learning is a font of knowledge.
3. Peers provide feedback that wouldn't be there otherwise.
4. Learning is distributed and nonlinear.
5. You realize the dream if you can, then wake up!
If some of these principles seem a bit ephemeral, it may help to think
of in a more unified manner, as a set of dimensions that describe
possible changes that can take place in peer produced peer learning [6]:
1. Changing the nature of the space
2. Changing what I know about myself
3. Changing my perspective
4. Changing content or connectivity
5. Changing objectives
Now that we've connecting the idea of paragogy to a perspective focused
on the kinds of change that can take place in peer produced peer
learning, it's time to reveal that our secret for success is hidden in
plain view: the word “paragogy” means “production” in Greek. We’re
particularly interested in how the powerful blend of peer learning and
collaborative work drives open source software development, and helps to
build resources like Wikipedia. But in fact it works equally well in
offline settings, from official hacker/maker spaces to garages and
treehouses. Projects like [StoryCorps](http://storycorps.org/about/)
show how contemporary media can add a powerful new layer to ancient
strategies for teaching, learning, and sharing.
The word “peeragogy” attempts to make these ideas immediately
understandable to everyone, including non-geeks. Peeragogy is about
peers learning together, and teaching each other. In the end, the two
words are actually synonyms. If you want to go into theory-building
mode, you can spell it “paragogy”. If you want to be a bit more down to
earth, stick with “peeragogy.”
## References
1. Dewey, J. (2004). Democracy and education. Dover Publications.
2. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. MIT press.
3. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital
age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance
Learning, 2(1), 3-10.
4. Corneli, J. and Danoff, C. J. (2011), Paragogy: Synergizing
individual and organizational learning. (Published on Wikiversity.)
5. Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From
pedagogy to andragogy. Chicago: Follett.
6. Corneli, J. and Mikroyannidis, A. (2011). Personalised
Peer-Supported Learning: The Peer-to-Peer Learning Environment
(P2PLE). *Digital Education Review* 20, 14-23.
# more_fun.md
Consider the following learning scenarios:
1. A small study group for a tough class in Quantum Mechanics convenes
at at the library late one night, resolving to do well on the next
day’s exam. The students manage to deflect their purpose for a while
by gossiping about hook-ups and parties, studying for other classes,
and sharing photos. Then, first one member, then another, takes the
initiative and as a group, the students eventually pull their
attention back to the task at hand. They endure the monotony of
studying for several hours, and the next day, they own the exam.
2. A young skateboarder spends hours tweaking the mechanics of how to
make a skateboard float in the air for a split second, enduring
physical pain of repeated wipeouts. With repetition and success
comes a deep understanding of the physics of the trick. That same
student cannot string together more than five minutes of continuous
attention during class and spends even less time on homework for the
class before giving up.
Peer-learning participants succeed when they are motivated to learn.
Skateboarding is primarily intrinsically motivated, with some extrinsic
motivation coming from the respect that kids receive from peers when
they master a trick. In most cases, the primary motivation for learning
physics is extrinsic, coming from parents' and society’s expectations
that the student excel and assure his or her future by getting into a
top college.
The student very well could be intrinsically motivated to have a glowing
report card, but not for the joy of learning physics or chemistry, but
because of the motivation to earn a high grade as part of her overall
portfolio. Taken a different way, what is it about these topics that’s
fun for a student who loves science? Perhaps she anticipates the
respect, power and prestige that comes from announcing a new
breakthrough; or she may feel her work is important for the greater
good, or prosperity, of humanity; or she may simply be thrilled to think
about atoms bonding to form new compounds.
Learning situations frequently bore the learner when extrinsic
motivation is involved. Whether by parents or society, being forced to
do something, as opposed to choosing to, ends up making the individual
less likely to succeed. In some cases it’s clear, but trying to figure
out what makes learning fun for a group of individual humans can be very
difficult. Often there is no clear-cut answer that can be directly
applied in the learning environment. Either way, identifying the factors
that can make learning boring or fun is a good start. Perhaps learning
certain skills or topics is intrinsically boring, no matter what, and we
have to accept that.
[caption id="" align="aligncenter"
width="300"]
Photo of Dmitri Mendeleev (1834-1907). Found on The Guardian’s Notes &
Theories blog. Public domain.[/caption]
One way to think about fun learning is that it’s fun to learn - and be
aware that you're learning - new patterns. Jürgen Schmidhuber wrote: “A
[...] learner maximizes expected fun by finding or creating data that is
better compressible in some yet unknown but learnable way, such as
jokes, songs, paintings, or scientific observations obeying novel,
unpublished laws” [1]. So the skateboarder enjoyed coming across new
patterns: novel tricks that are learnable. (By the way, a few people,
like mathematician William Stein, find ways to combine the love of
science and skateboarding.)
## Learner, know thyself: a self-evaluation technique
The learning contributed and acquired by each member of the peer
learning enterprise depends on a healthy sense of self-awareness. When
you ask yourself, “What do I have to offer?” and “What do I get out of
it?” we think you’ll come up with some exciting answers. In peer
learning, whether or not you're pursuing a practical objective, you’re
in charge, and this kind of learning is usually fun. Indeed, as we’ll
describe below, there are deep links between play and learning. We
believe we can improve the co-learning experience by adopting a playful
mindset. Certainly some of our best learning moments in the Peeragogy
project have been peppered with humor and banter. So we found that a key
strategy for successful peer learning is to engage in a self-assessment
of your motivations and abilities. In this exercise, you take into
account factors like the learning context, timing and sequence of
learning activities, social reinforcements, and visible reward. The
peeragogical view is that learning is most effective when it contains
some form of enjoyment or satisfaction, or when it leads to a concrete
accomplishment.
When joining the Peeragogy project, Charles Jeffrey Danoff did a brief
self-evaluation about what makes him interested in learning:
1. **Context**. I resist being groomed for some unforeseeable future
rather than for a specific purpose.
2. **Timing and sequence**. I find learning fun when I’m studying
something as a way to procrastinate on another pressing assignment.
3. **Social reinforcement**. Getting tips from peers on how to navigate
a snowboard around moguls was more fun for me than my Dad showing me
the proper way to buff the car’s leather seats on chore day.
4. **Experiential awareness**. In high school, it was not fun to sit
and compose a 30-page reading journal for Frankenstein. But owing in
part to those types of prior experiences, I now find writing
pleasurable and it’s fun to learn how to write better.
We will explore the patterns of peer learning in more detail in the
section on [practice](http://peeragogy.org/practice/).
## Reference
1. Schmidhuber, J. (2010). Formal theory of creativity, fun, and
intrinsic motivation. Autonomous Mental Development (IEEE), 2(3),
230-247.
# help_needed.md
Personal Learning Networks are the collections of people and information
resources (and relationships with them) that people cultivate in order
to form their own public or private learning networks — living, growing,
responsive sources of information, support, and inspiration that support
self-learners.
> **Howard Rheingold**: “When I started using social media in the
> classroom, I looked for and began to learn from more experienced
> educators. First, I read and then tried to comment usefully on their
> blog posts and tweets. When I began to understand who knew what in the
> world of social media in education, I narrowed my focus to the most
> knowledgeable and adventurous among them. I paid attention to the
> people the savviest social media educators paid attention to. I added
> and subtracted voices from my attention network, listened and
> followed, then commented and opened conversations. When I found
> something I thought would interest the friends and strangers I was
> learning from, I passed along my own learning through my blogs and
> Twitter stream. I asked questions, asked for help, and eventually
> started providing answers and assistance to those who seemed to know
> less than I. The teachers I had been learning from had a name for what
> I was doing — “growing a personal learning network.” So I started
> looking for and learning from people who talked about HOW to grow a
> “PLN” as the enthusiasts called them.”
### Strong and weak ties
Your PLN will have people and sites that you check on often – your main
sources of information and learning – your ‘strong ties’. Your ‘weak
ties’ are those people and sites that you don’t allow a lot of bandwidth
or time. But they may become strong later, as your network grows or your
interests expand. This is a two-way street – it is very important that
you are sharing what you learn and discover with those in your network
and not just taking, if you want to see your network expand.
### Peer learning networks
As you convene your peer learning group, in one form or another you will
develop and share "peeragogical profiles" --- advertising what you want
to learn, what you'd be interested in helping teach others. If you
present yourself and your projects in a thoughtful and engaging way,
this will help you to build effective connections. Networks of these
connections can span across different subjects, across a city, or across
national boundaries. Peeragogy helps to make sense of the idea of
"learning networks" that has been around since at least the 1970s. Much
as theories of pedagogy would be relevant for anyone carefully planning
an individual learning programme, peeragogy is relevant for
self-organized learning communities operating at larger scales.
# how_to_structure.md
## From syllabus and curriculum to personal and peer learning plans
Part of the reason for the effectiveness of peeragogy is that the
“syllabus” or “curriculum” -- more generally, the learning plan -- is
developed by the people doing the learning. You won’t faint with shock
when you see the reading list if you helped write it.
Having youwn own learning plan at the outset helps each participant
identify his or her unique learning and teaching proclivities and
capabilities, and effectively apply them in the peer setting. In
developing your personal plan, you can ask yourself the following
questions:
1. What do I most need to learn about in the time ahead?
2. What are the best ways I learn, what learning activities will meet
my learning needs, what help will I need and how long will it take?
3. What will I put into my personal portfolio to demonstrate my
learning progress and achievements?
Early in the process, the peer learning group should also convene to
develop a peer learning plan. In the Peeragogy project, we used live
meetings and forum-style platforms to discuss the group-level versions
of the questions listed above. Personal learning needs and skills were
also aired via these platforms, but the key shared outcome was an
initial project plan. Initially this took the form of an outline of
handbook chapters to write, as well as a division of labor.
Nothing was set in stone, and both the peer group and individual
participants have continued to develop, implement, review, and adjust
their goals as the project develops. We have stayed sufficiently
connected to the original goal of producing a handbook about peer
learning that you now have one in your hands (or on your screen). We’ve
also added some new goals for the project as time has gone by. Having a
malleable framework enables peer learners to:
1. Identify appropriate directions and goals for future learning;
2. Review their strengths and areas for development;
3. Identify goals and plans for improvement;
4. Monitor their actions and review and adjust plans as needed to
achieve their goals;
5. Update the goals to correspond to progress.
This doesn’t mean you have to let chaos rule, but often in the swirl of
ideas and contributions, new directions take shape and new ideas take
hold.
### Self-generating templates
Documentation like mind maps, outlines, blogs or journals, and forum
posts for a peer learning project can create an audit trail or living
history of the process. You can mine the documentation of a past
peer-learning project or a completed phase of an ongoing project for
effective learning patterns, and if you're careful to document
everything, you can really benefit by taking the time to compare what
you’ve achieved against the stated goal or mission at the outset. Use
the record to reflect and evaluate key elements of the process for you
as a facilitator and as a member of the peer learning group. Adapt your
next phase of planning accordingly.
## From corporate training to learning on the job
[caption id="attachment\_1999" align="aligncenter" width="380"][](http://peeragogy.org/peer-learning-overview/learn-2/)
"I think because of the tremendous changes we see in education and at
work, the sets (attitudes) are beginning to overlap more and more," said
Joachim Stroh of the Google+ community, Visual Metaphors.[/caption]
Today’s knowledge workers typically have instant, ubiquitous access to
the internet. The measure of their ability is an open-book exam. “What
do you know?” is replaced with “What can you do?” And if they get bored,
they can relatively easily be mentally elsewhere.
This has ramifications for the way managers manage as well as the way
teachers teach. To extract optimal performance from workers, managers
must inspire them rather than command them. Antoine de Saint-Exupéry put
it nicely: “If you want to build a boat, do not instruct the men to saw
wood, stitch the sails, prepare the tools and organize the work, but
make them long for setting sail and travel to distant lands.”
> **Jay Cross**: “If I were an instructional designer in a moribund
> training department, I’d polish up my resume and head over to
> marketing. Co-learning can differentiate services, increase product
> usage, strengthen customer relationships, and reduce the cost of
> hand-holding. It’s cheaper and more useful than advertising. But
> instead of just making a copy of today’s boring educational practices,
> build something based on interaction and camaraderie, perhaps with
> some healthy competition thrown in. Again, the emphasis should always
> be on learning in order to do something!”
In the section on [organizing a learning
context](http://peeragogy.org/organize/ "Organize"), we'll say quite a
bit more about the implications that our full conception of peer
learning has for managers, teachers, and other facilitators.
# work_together.md
## Metacognition and mindfulness in peer learning
Metacognition and mindfulness have to do with your awareness how how you
think, talk, participate, and attend to circumstances.
> **Alan Schoenfeld**: What (exactly) are you doing? Can you describe it
> precisely? Why are you doing it? How does it fit into the solution?
> How does it help you? What will you do with the outcome when you
> obtain it? [1]
It can be particularly useful to apply this sort of "meta awareness" as
you think about the roles that you take on in a given project, the kind
of contributions you want to make, and what you hope to get out of the
experience. These are all likely to change as time passes, so it's good
to get in the habit of reflection.
### Potential roles in your peer-learning project
1. Leader, Manager, Team Member, Worker
2. Content Creator, Author, Content Processor, Reviewer, Editor
3. Presentation Creator, Designer, Graphics, Applications
4. Planner, Project Manager, Coordinator, Attendee, Participant
5. Mediator, Moderator, Facilitator, Proponent, Advocate,
Representative, Contributor
### Potential contributions
1. Create, Originate, Research, Aggregate
2. Develop, Design, Integrate, Refine, Convert
3. Write, Edit, Format
### Potential motivations
1. Acquisition of training or support in a topic or field;
2. Building relationships with interesting people;
3. Finding professional opportunities through other participants;
4. Creating or bolstering a personal network;
5. More organized and rational thinking through dialog and debate;
6. Feedback about performance and understanding of the topic.
The process of shared reflection can prime a group for cohesion and
success. It can be tremendously useful to think about the motivations of
other participants, and how these can be jointly served. How can we
re-use the "side-effects" of individual and cooperative efforts in a
useful way?
A famous work in ink by Sengai Gibon (1750–1837)
### Two theories of motivation
One of the most prominent thinkers working in the field of
(self-)motivation is Daniel Pink [2], who proposes a theory of
motivation based on autonomy, mastery, and purpose, or, more colorfully:
1. The urge to direct my life
2. The desire to get better at something that matters
3. The yearning to do something that serves a purpose bigger than just
“myself”
There’s clearly a “learning orientation” behind the second point: it’s
not just a matter of “fun” — the sense of achievement matters. But fun
remains relevant. Thomas Malone [3] specifically asked “What makes
things fun to learn?” His proposed framework for building fun learning
activities is also based on the three ingredients: fantasy, challenge,
and curiosity.
We can easily see how “participation” relates to “motivation” as
described above. When I can get useful information from other people, I
can direct my own life better. When I have means of exploring my dreams
by chatting then over and exploring some of the elements in a safe way,
I’m in a much better position to make something in reality. A solid
reputation that comes from being able to help others serves as a good
indicator of personal progress, a sign that one is able to deal with
greater challenges. Relationships provide the most basic sense of being
part of something bigger than oneself: et cetera. We'll say more about
these matters in the chapters on
[Cooperation](http://peeragogy.org/cowork/ "Cooperation").
## References
1. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1987). What's all the fuss about metacognition?
In A. H. Schoenfeld (Ed.), *Cognitive science and mathematics
education* (pp. 189-215). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
2. Pink, D. (2011). *Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates
Us*, Canongate Books Ltd
3. Malone, T.W. (1981). Toward a Theory of Intrinsically Motivating
Instruction, *Cognitive Science*, 4, pp. 333-369
# we_won.md
### Different ways to analyze the learning process
After doing some personal reflection on the roles you want to take on
and the contributions you want to make (as we discussed above), you may
also want to work together with your learning group to analyze the
learning process in more detail. There are many different phases,
stages, and dimensions - some simple and intuitive, others more complex
-- that you can use to help structure and understand the learning
experience: we list some of these below. (Detailed references are
collected in the recommended readings at the end of the book.)
1. Forming, Norming, Storming, Performing (from Bruce Tuckman)
2. The “five-stage e-moderating model” (from Gilly Salmon)
3. I, We, Its, It (from Ken Wilber -- for an application in modeling
educational systems, see [1])
4. Assimilative, Information Processing, Communicative, Productive,
Experiential, Adaptive (from Martin Oliver and Gráinne Conole)
5. Guidance & Support, Communication & Collaboration, Reflection &
Demonstration, Content & Activities (from Gráinne Conole)
6. Considered in terms of “Learning Power” (Ruth Deakin-Crick *et al*.)
7. Multiple intelligences (after Howard Gardner)
8. The associated “mental state” (after Mihaly Csíkszentmihályi; see
picture)
[caption id="" align="aligncenter"
width="300"][](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Challenge_vs_skill.svg)
[Challenge vs.
Skill](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Challenge_vs_skill.svg).
By w:User:Oliverbeatson (w:File:Challenge vs skill.jpg) [Public domain],
via Wikimedia Commons[/caption]
### Peer learning for one
Can you apply the ideas of peer learning on your own? In a certain
sense, it’s impossible, but somehow that never stops people from trying.
We find a striking parallel between the paragogy principles and the 5
Elements of Effective Thinking proposed by Edward Burger and Michael
Starbird in a recent book [2]. It’s a nice short book and worth a read.
Here, we will just quote the titles of the main chapters:
1. Quintessence, Engaging Change: Transform Yourself
2. Earth, Grounding Your Thinking: Understanding Deeply
3. Air, Creating Questions out of Thin Air: Be your own Socrates
4. Water, Seeing the Flow of Ideas: Look Back, Look Forward
5. Fire, Igniting Insights through Mistakes: Fail to Succeed
We think that “thinking” is often most effective when it’s done with
others, and this is something that Burger and Starbird don’t give much
attention. Nevertheless, even when you find yourself on your own in the
midst of that challenging DIY project, you can use the techniques of
peer learning to understand yourself as a growing, changing part of a
shared context in motion. This can contribute to an effective and
adaptive outlook on life.
We invite you to approach this book as a “peer learner” -- and we hope
the techniques we’ve introduced here will serve you well in the world at
large. The book, in part, documents the growth of our subject as it
moved from a critical and basically normative view to a richer
descriptive theory, rooted in a collection strategies for doing emergent
design. It's been fun -- and worthwhile (if also frustrating at times)
-- working on it. We sincerely hope you enjoy the rest of the book, but
don't be sparing with your criticism and creative ideas! You'll find
some further reflections on these matters in the sections on
[peeragogical assessment](http://peeragogy.org/assessment/ "Assess").
## References
1. Corneli, J., and Mikroyannidis, A. (2012). Crowdsourcing education
on the Web: a role-based analysis of online learning communities, in
Alexandra Okada, Teresa Conolly, and Peter Scott (eds.),
Collaborative Learning 2.0: Open Educational Resources, IGI Global.
2. Burger, E. and Starbird, M. (2013). The 5 Elements of Effective
Thinking, Princeton University Press.
# motivation.md
> Participants must bring self-knowledge and no small measure of honesty
> to the peer-learning project in order to accurately enunciate their
> motivations. If everyone in your peer learning project asks “What
> brings me here?” “How can I contribute?” and “How can I contribute
> more effectively?” things will really start percolating. Test this
> suggestion by asking these questions yourself and taking action on the
> answers!
The primary motivators reported by participants in the Peeragogy project
include:
1. Acquisition of training or support in a topic or field;
2. Building relationships with interesting people;
3. Finding professional opportunities through other participants;
4. Creating or bolstering a personal network;
5. More organized and rational thinking through dialog and debate;
6. Feedback about their own performance and understanding of the topic.
We've seen that different motivations can affect the vitality of the
peeragogical process and the end result for the individual participant.
And different participants definitely have different motivations, and
the differences can be surprising: for instance, if you're motivated by
social image, you may not be so interested in reciprocity, and vice
versa [1]. Motivations come with associated risks. For example, one may
be reluctant to mention business aspirations in a volunteer context for
fear of seeming greedy or commercial. Whether or not potential
peeragogues eventually decide to take on the risk depends on various
factors. Actions that typify inappropriate behavior in one culture might
represent desirable behavior in another. Motivations often come out of
the closet through conflict; for example, when one learner feels
offended or embarrassed by the actions of another.
> **Philip Spalding**: *“The idea of visiting a garden together in a
> group to learn the names of flowers might have been the original
> intention for forming a Garden Group. The social aspect of having a
> day out might be goal of the people participating.”*
*[](http://peeragogy.org/motivation/4427-3/)*
*"What's my motivation?"*
# Example: Peeragogy editor Charlotte Pierce
Basically, I’m here because as an early adopter and admitted gadget
freak, I find it fun and rewarding to explore new technologies and
topics that I feel have a practical or exciting application. But I have
some some other motivations that subtly co-exist alongside my eagerness
to explore and learn.
Howard Rheingold’s reputation as an innovator and internet pioneer got
my attention when he announced his Think-Know Tools course on Facebook
in 2012. I had known of Howard from the 1990’s when I was a member of
The WELL (Whole Earth ‘Lectronic Link). I was curious to see what Howard
was up to, so I signed onto the wiki site, paid my $300, and took the
course starting in October.
Looking back, I realize we were practicing Peeragogy throughout the TKT
course, though at the time I hardly knew peer learning from a pickle. In
late November, missing the camaraderie and challenge of TKT, I stepped
over to check out the *Peeragogy Handbook*.
Which brings me to motivations in signing on to Peeragogy. Since Howard
and several Think-Know Tools co-learners were already dedicating their
time here and their work looked innovative and exciting, I suspected
they might be onto something that I wanted to be a part of. Plus, my
brain was primed by the TKT experience. "What if a diverse group of
people could learn a subject with little or no cost and not a lot of
barriers to entry," I thought. "What if their own experience qualified
them to join, contribute, and learn."
I also thought there might be a chance to meet some potential business
partners or clients there - but if not, the experience looked rewarding
and fun enough for me to take the risk of no direct remuneration. There
was no up front cost to me, and a wealth of knowledge to gain as a part
of something new and exciting. These are always big draws for me. I
wanted to be in on it, and nobody was telling me I couldn't!
My projections proved correct. The participants already on board were
gracious in welcoming me to Peeragogy, patient in getting me up to
speed, and persistent in coaxing me into using the tools central to the
project. I connected, learned, grew, and contributed. Now I'm on the
brink of starting a peer learning project of my own in my publishing
organization, IPNE.org. Stay tuned!
# Example: Cafes, schools, workshops
Suppose we wanted to make Peeragogy into a model that can be used in
schools, libraries, and so forth, worldwide - and, in fact we do! How
can we bring the basic Peeragogy motivations to bear, and make a
resource, plan of action, and process that other people can connect
with? In brief, how do we build peer learning into the curriculum*,
*providing new insight from the safety of the existing structure?
One concrete way to implement these broad aims would be to make a
peeragogy-oriented *development* project whose goal is to set up a
system of internet cafes, schools, or workshops in places like China or
Africa, where people could go to collaborate on work or to learn
technical subjects. Students could learn on the job. It seems reasonable
to think that investors could make a reasonable profit through
“franchises,” hardware sales, and so forth -- and obviously making money
is a motivation that most people can relate to.
In developing such a project, we would want to learn from other similar
projects that already exist. For example, in Chicago, State Farm
Insurance has created a space called the “[Next Door
Cafe](https://www.nextdoorchi.com/)” that runs community events. One of
their offerings is free financial coaching, with the explicit agreement
that the issues you discuss return to State Farm as market research.
> **State Farm**: “Free? Really. Yes, because we're experimenting. We
> want to learn what people really want. Then, we'll shoot those wants
> back to the Farm. We help you. You help us innovate. We're all smarter
> for it. We think it's a win-win."
Thus, Next Door Cafe forms part of a system to exploit the side-effects
of interpersonal interactions to create a system that learns. A peer
learning example from the opposite side of the world started in a slum
next to New Delhi where Sugata Mitra gave children a computer and they
self organized into a learning community and taught themselves how to
use the machine and much more.
> **Sugata Mitra**: I think what we need to look at is we need to look
> at learning as the product of educational self-organization. If you
> allow the educational process to self-organize, then learning emerges.
> It's not about making learning happen. It's about letting it happen.
In 2014, we're going to try a somewhat similar experiment: Can we build
a “[Peeragogy
Accelerator](http://commonsabundance.net/docs/help-build-the-peeragogy-accelerator-work-in-progress/)”
for a half-dozen peer learning projects, each of which defines their own
metrics for success, but who come together to offer support and
guidance, using the *Peeragogy Handbook* as a resource?
### Reference
1. Jérôme Hergueux (2013). [Cooperation in a Peer Production Economy:
Experimental Evidence from
Wikipedia](https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/interactive/events/luncheons/2013/11/jerome),
talk presented at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society.
2. Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments
for an argumentative theory, *Behavioral and Brain Sciences*, 34,
57-111
# sphinx.md
> 5PH1NX: 5tudent Peer Heuristic for 1Nformation Xchange - we think of
> it as a "curiously trans-media" use case in peeragogical assessment
*Author:* David Preston
> Over the last several decades technology has driven massive shifts in
> the way we communicate and collaborate. Information technology,
> socioeconomic trends, an increasingly complex and uncertain future,
> and school's failed brand are contributing factors in an emerging
> discourse that seeks to align learning with our rapidly changing
> culture.
>
> Open Source Learning and Peeragogy, two emerging theoretical
> frameworks in this discourse, leverage end-to-end user principles of
> communication technology to facilitate peers learning together and
> teaching each other. In both traditional and liminal learning
> communities, one of the major points of contact between education and
> societal culture is the purposeful use of assessment. The processes of
> giving, receiving, and applying constructive critique makes learners
> better thinkers, innovators, motivators, collaborators, coworkers,
> friends, relatives, spouses, teammates, and neighbors. Implementing
> peer-based assessment can be problematic in schooling institutions
> where evaluative authority is traditionally conflated with
> hierarchical authority, and where economic and political influences
> have focused attention on summative, quantitative, standardized
> measurement of learning and intelligence.
>
> This is the story of how one learning community is adopting Open
> Source Learning and Peeragogical principles to decentralize and enrich
> the assessment process.
>
> **Aldous Huxley**: Knowledge is acquired when we succeed in fitting a
> new experience into the system of concepts based upon our old
> experiences. Understanding comes when we liberate ourselves from the
> old and so make possible a direct, unmediated contact with the new,
> the mystery, moment by moment, of our existence.
## Enter 5PH1NX
On Monday, April 2, 2011, students in three English classes at a
California public high school discovered anomalies in the day's entry on
their course blog. (Reminder: not so long ago this sentence would have
been rightly interpreted as being science fiction.) The date was wrong
and the journal topic was this:
> In The Principles of Psychology (1890), William James wrote, "The
> faculty of voluntarily bringing back a wandering attention, over and
> over again, is the very root of judgment, character and will. No one
> is *compos sui* if he have it not. An education which should improve
> this faculty would be the education par excellence." How have your
> experiences in this course helped you focus your attention? What do
> you still need to work on? What elements of the following text (from
> Haruki Murakami's *1Q84*) draw your attention and help you construct
> meaning? The driver nodded and took the money. “Would you like a
> receipt?” “No need. And keep the change.” “Thanks very much,” he said.
> “Be care**f**ul, it looks windy out there. Don't sl**i**p.” “I'll be
> careful,” Aomame said. “A**n**d also,” the **d**river said, facing
> **t**he mirror, “please remember: t**h**ings are not what they seem.”
> Things are not what they seem, Aomame repeated mentally. “What do you
> mean by that?” she asked with knitt**e**d brows. The driver chose his
> words carefully: “It's **j**ust that y**o**u're about to do something
> out of the ordinary. Am I right? People do not ordinarily climb down
> the emergency stairs of the Metropolitan Expressway in the middle of
> the day-- especially women.” “I suppose you're right.” “Right. And
> after you do something like that, the everyday loo**k** of things
> might seem to chang**e** a little. Things may look *diffe**r**ent* to
> you than they did before. I've had that experience myself. But don't
> let appearance**s** fool you. There's always only one reality.”
## Find the jokers
The jokers were real [4] and hidden (without much intent to conceal)
around the classroom and in students' journals. Students found them and
asked questions about the letters in bold; the questions went
unanswered. Some thought it was just another of their teacher's wild
hair ideas. Although they didn't know it yet they were playing the
liminal role that Oedipus originated in mythology. Solving the riddle
would enable them to usher out an old way of thinking and introduce the
new. The old way: An authority figure sets the rules, packages the
information for a passive audience, and unilaterally evaluates each
learner's performance. In that context, peeragogical assessment might be
introduced with a theoretical framework, a rubric, and a lesson plan
with input, checks for understanding, and guided practice as a
foundation for independent work. The new way: In Open Source Learning
the learner pursues a path of inquiry within communities that function
as end-to-end user networks. Each individual begins her learning with a
question and pursues answers through an interdisciplinary course of
study that emphasizes multiple modalities and the five Fs: mental
Fitness, physical Fitness, spiritual Fitness, civic Fitness, and
technological Fitness. Learners collaborate with mentors and receive
feedback from experts, community-based peers, and the public. They are
the heroes of learning journeys. Heroes don't respond to syllabi. They
respond to calls to adventure. Open Source Learning prepares students
for the unforeseen. By the time they met the 5PH1NX students had learned
about habits of mind, operating schema, digital culture and community,
self-expression, collaboration, free play, autonomy,
confidence/trust/risk, and resilience. These ideas had been reinforced
through nonfiction articles and literary selections such as Montaigne's
Essays, Plato's Allegory of the Cave, Bukowski's Laughing Heart,
Shakespeare's Hamlet, Sartre's No Exit and others. The first poem
assigned in the course was Bukowski's “[Laughing
Heart](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHOHi5ueo0A)”: *The Gods will
offer you chances. Know them. Take them.* So it is with knowledge and
understanding. Today we are presented with an overwhelming,
unprecedented quantity and variety of data in our physical and virtual
lives; to cope we must improve the ways we seek, select, curate,
analyze, evaluate, and act on information. On the back of each Joker
card was a QR code that linked to a blog page with riddles and clues to
a search. At this point students realized they were playing a game. A
tab on the blog page labeled “The Law” laid out the rules of engagement:
## This is The Law
1. You cannot "obey" or "break" The Law. You can only make good
decisions or bad decisions.
2. Good decisions lead to positive outcomes.
3. Bad decisions lead to suffering.
4. Success requires humanity.
5. "For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the
Wolf is the Pack." -Rudyard Kipling
6. "The Way of the sage is to act but not to compete." -Lao Tzu
7. Be honorable.
8. Have fun.
9. Question.
10. *Sapere aude*.
This is The Law. After a second set of on-campus and blog quests,
students noticed a shift in 5PH1NX. A couple of weeks before the first
clue was published, during a Socratic seminar on Derrida's concept of
Free Play, a student said, "We learn best when adults take away the
crutches and there is no safety net." The quote was used in the next
clue; students began to realize that the game was not pre-determined.
5PH1NX was evolving in response to their contributions. This is a
manifestation of the hackneyed writing cliché: show, don't tell. The
student's comment was a call to action. The Feats of Wisdom were
designed to engage learners over a vacation break in fun, collaborative,
social media-friendly missions that required engagement in the
community, expansion of their personal learning networks, and
documentation on their blogs. For example:
### FEAT \#1
*Buy a ticket to "The Hunger Games" (or any other movie that's likely to
draw a large, young, rowdy audience). Before the lights dim and the
trailers begin, walk to the screen, turn to the audience, and in a loud,
clear voice, recite the "To be, or not to be..." soliloquy from Hamlet
(don't worry if you make a couple mistakes, just be sure you make it all
the way to, "Be all my sins remembered."). [Capture the event on video &
post it to your
blog.](http://alarhsenglitcomp.blogspot.com/2012/12/feats-of-wisdom-1_15.html)*
Students had been using the Internet without an Acceptable Use Policy
all year; such policies are one-to-many artifacts of a central authority
and far weaker than community norms. So rather than introduce "rules"
5PH1NX simply provided a reminder of the client-side responsibility.
## The Emergence of Peeragogical Assessment
The third page on the Feats of Wisdom blog was entitled *Identifying and
Rewarding Greatness*, where learners were greeted with the following
paragraph:
> If you see something that was done with love, that pushed the
> boundaries, set the standard, broke the mold, pushed the envelope,
> raised the bar, blew the doors off, or rocked in some previously
> unspecified way, please bring it to the attention of the tribe by
> posting a link to it [here].
No one did. Instead, they started doing something more effective. They
started building. One student hacked the entire game and then created
her own version. Other students began to consider the implications for
identifying and rewarding greatness. They realized that one teacher
couldn't possibly observe how 96 students were working over vacation out
in the community and online to accomplish the Feats of Wisdom. In order
to get credit for their efforts they would have to curate and share
their work-process and product. They also realized that the same logic
applied to learning and coursework in general; after all, even the most
engaged, conscientious teacher only sees a high school or college
student a few hours a week, under relatively artificial conditions. The
learner presumably spends her whole life in the company of her own
brain. Who is the more qualified reporting authority? With these
thoughts in mind students created *Project Infinity*, a peer-to-peer
assessment platform through which students could independently assign
value to the thoughts and activities they deemed worthy. Because the
2011-12 5PH1NX was a three-week exercise in gamification, *Project
Infinity* quickly evolved to include collaborative working groups and
coursework. This was learner-centered Peeragogical assessment in action;
learners identified a need and an opportunity, they built a tool for the
purpose, they managed it themselves, and they leveraged it in a
meaningful way to support student achievement in the core curriculum.
## Project Infinity 2 & Implications for the Future
Alumni from the Class of 2012 felt such a strong positive connection to
their experience in Open Source Learning and Peeragogical assessment
that they built a version for the Class of 2013. They created *Project
Infinity2* with enhanced functionality. They asked the teacher to embed
an associated Twitter feed on the course blog, then came to classes to
speak with current students about their experiences. Everyone thought
the Class of 2013 would stand on the shoulders of giants and adopt the
platform with similar enthusiasm. They were wrong. Students understood
the concept and politely contributed suggestions for credit, but it
quickly became evident that they weren't enthusiastic. Submissions
decreased and finally the *Project Infinity2* Twitter feed disappeared
from the course blog. Learners' blogs and project work suggested that
they were mastering the core curriculum and meta concepts, and they
appeared generally excited about Open Source Learning overall. So why
weren't they more excited about the idea of assessing themselves and
each other? Because *Project Infinity2* wasn't theirs. They didn't get
to build it. It was handed to them in the same way that a syllabus is
handed to them. No matter how innovative or effective it might be,
*Project Infinity2* was just another tool designed by someone else to
get students to do something they weren't sure they wanted or needed to
do in the first place. Timing may also be a factor. Last year's students
didn't meet 5PH1NX until the first week in April, well into the spring
semester. This year's cohort started everything faster and met 5PH1NX in
November. In January they understood the true potential of their
situation started to take the reins. As students realized what was
happening with the clues and QR codes they approached the teacher and
last year's alumni with a request: "Let Us In." They don't just want to
design learning materials or creatively demonstrate mastery, they want
to chart their own course and build the vehicles for taking the trip.
Alumni and students are becoming Virtual TAs who will start the formal
peer-to-peer advising and grading process. In the Spring Semester all
students will be asked to prepare a statement of goals and intentions,
and they will be informed that the traditional teacher will be
responsible for no more than 30% of their grade. The rest will come from
a community of peers, experts and members of the public. On Tuesday of
Finals Week, 5PH1NX went from five players to two hundred. Sophomores
and freshman have jumped into the fray and hacked/solved one of the blog
clues before seniors did. Members of the Open Source Learning cohort
have also identified opportunities to enrich and expand 5PH1NX. A series
of conversations about in-person retreats and the alumni community led
to students wanting to create a massively multiple player learning
cohort. Imagine 50,000-100,000 learners collaborating and sharing
information on a quest to pass an exam by solving a puzzle that leads
them to a "Learning Man Festival" over Summer break. When 5PH1NX
players return from Winter Break in January they will transform their
roles relative to the game and the course. Several have already shared
"AHA!" moments in which they discovered ways to share ideas and
encourage collaboration and peer assessment. They have identified
Virtual Teaching Assistant candidates, who will be coached by alumni,
and they have plans to provide peer-based assessment for their online
work. They are also now actively engaged in taking more control over the
collaboration process itself. On the last day of the semester, a
post-finals throwaway day of 30-minute class sessions that
administrators put on the calendar to collect Average Daily Attendance
money, hardly anyone came to campus. But Open Source Learning students
were all there. They have separated the experience of learning from the
temporal, spatial, and cultural constraints of school. They understand
how democracy works: those who participate make the decisions. No one
knows how this ends, but the outcome of Peeragogical assessment is not a
score; it is learners who demonstrate their thinking progress and
mastery through social production and peer-based critique. This
community's approach to learning and assessment has prepared its members
for a complex and uncertain future by moving them from a world of
probability to a world of possibility. As one student put it in a video
entitled "We Are Superman," "What we are doing now may seem small, but
we are part of something so much bigger than we think. What does this
prove? It proves everything; it proves that it's possible."
## Background
A world in which work looks like what's described in the PSFK think
tank's **[Future of Work Report
2013](http://www.slideshare.net/PSFK/psfk-presents-future-of-work-report "PSFK Future of Work Report 2013")**
requires a new learning environment.
The problem is that tools and strategies such as MOOCs, videos, virtual
environments, and games are only as good as the contexts in which they
are used. Even the most adept practitioners quickly discover that
pressing emerging technology and culture into the shape of yesterday's
curricular and instructional models amounts to little more than
Skinner's Box 2.0. So what is to be done? How can we use emerging tools
and culture to deliver such an amazing individual and collaborative
experience that it shatters expectations and helps students forget
they're in school long enough to fall in love with learning again?
Education in the Information Age should enable learners to find,
analyze, evaluate, curate, and act on the best available information.
Pursuing an interdisciplinary path of inquiry in an interest-based
community doesn't just facilitate the acquisition of factual knowledge
(which has a limited half-life). The process brings learners closer to
understanding their own habits of mind and gives them practice and an
identity in the culture they'll be expected to join after they graduate.
This requires new literacies and a curriculum that emphasizes mental
fitness, physical fitness, spiritual fitness, civic fitness, and
technological fitness.
Models of assessment that emphasize self-directed and collaborative
Peeragogical principles enrich the learning experience and accelerate
and amplify deep understanding. Because these approaches are pull-based
and generate tens of thousands of multi- or trans-media data points per
learner, they also generate multi-dimensional portraits of learner
development and provide feedback that goes far beyond strengths and
weaknesses in content retention. The long-term benefit is exponential.
Learners who can intentionally direct their own concentration are
empowered far beyond knowledge acquisition or skill mastery. They become
more effective thinkers and -- because they are invested -- more caring
people. This learning experience is of their own making: it isn't
business, it's personal. The inspiration to recreate the process for
themselves and for others is the wellspring of the lifelong learner.
As Benjamin Disraeli put it, "In general the most successful man in life
is the man who has the best information." It is a widely accepted truism
in business that better data leads to better decisions. We now have the
ability to generate, aggregate, analyze, and evaluate much richer data
sets that can help us learn more about helping each other learn. Sharing
richer data in different ways will have the same game changing effect in
learning that it has in professional sports and investment banking.
Self-directed, collaborative assessment generates an unprecedented
quantity and variety of data that illuminates aspects of learning,
instruction, and overall systemic efficacy. Even a quick look at readily
available freeware metrics, blog/social media content, and time stamps
can provide valuable insight into an individual's working process and
differentiate learners in a network.
In the larger scheme of things, Peeragogical assessment provides direct
access to and practice in the culture learners will be expected to join
when they complete their course of study. Collaboration, delegation,
facilitating conversations, and other highly valued skills are developed
in plain view, where progress can be critiqued and validated by peers,
experts and the public.
But tall trees don't grow by themselves in the desert. Peeragogical
innovation can be challenging in organizational cultures that prioritize
control and standardization; as Senge *et al*. have observed, the system
doesn't evaluate quality when dealing with the unfamiliar, it just
pushes back. In schools this is so typical that it doesn't merit comment
in traditional media. The world notices when Syria goes dark, but in
school, restricted online access is business as usual.
Cultural constraints can make early adopters in technology-based
Peeragogy seem like Promethean risk-takers. Whenever the author gives a
talk or an interview, someone asks if he's in trouble.
Learners are not fooled by the rhetoric of in loco parentis or vision
statements that emphasize "safe, nurturing learning environments." With
notable exceptions, today's school leaders do not know as much about
technology as the young people for whom they assume responsibility.
Still, learners understand survival: they are fighting in unfavorable
terrain against an enemy of great power. Innovating is impossible, and
even loudly criticizing school or advocating for change is a risk. As a
result many do just enough to satisfy requirements without getting
involved enough to attract attention. Some have also internalized the
critical voices of authority or the failure of the formal experience as
evidence of their own inability: "I'm just not good at math."
How do we know when we're really good at something? Standardized testing
feedback doesn't help learners improve. Most of us don't have a natural
talent for offering or accepting criticism. And yet, as Wole Soyinka put
it, "The greatest threat to freedom is the absence of criticism."
Peeragogical interaction requires refining relational and topical
critique, as well as skills in other "meta" literacies, including but
not limited to critical thinking, collaboration, conflict resolution,
decision-making, mindfulness, patience and compassion.
Interpersonal learning skills are undervalued in today's schooling
paradigm. Consequently there is an operational lack of incentive for
teachers and learners to devote time and energy, particularly when it
carries a perceived cost in achievement on tests that determine
financial allocations and job security. In recent years there has been
increasing pressure to tie teacher compensation, performance evaluation,
and job status directly to student performance on standardized tests.
Some educators are introducing peer-to-peer network language and even
introducing peer-based assessment. But the contracts, syllabi and
letters to students typically stink of *the old way*. These one-to-many
documents are presented by agents of the institution endowed with the
power to reward or punish. To many students this does not represent a
choice or a real opportunity to hack the learning experience. They
suspect manipulation, and they wait for the other shoe to drop. Learners
also don't like to be told they're free while being forced to operate
within tight constraints. Consider this likely reaction to a policy that
is highly regarded in the field:
> “Students may choose to reblog their work in a public place or on
> their own blogs, but do so at their own risk.”
>
> *What? Did I read that correctly?*
>
> “Students may choose to reblog their work in a public place or on
> their own blogs, but do so at their own risk.”
>
> *Risk? What risk? The risk of possibly helping someone understand
> something that they didn't before, or get a different opinion than the
> one they had before? Someone please help me make sense of this.*
To effectively adopt Peeragogical assessment in the schooling context,
the community must construct a new understanding of how the members in a
network relate to one another independent of their roles in the
surrounding social or hierarchical systems. This requires trust, which
in school requires significant suspension of disbelief, which -- and
this is the hard part -- requires actual substantive, structural change
in the learning transaction. This is the defining characteristic of Open
Source Learning: as the network grows, changes composition, and changes
purpose, it also changes the direction and content of the learning
experience. Every network member can introduce new ideas, ask questions,
and contribute resources than refine and redirect the process.
This isn't easy. A member in this network must forget what she knows
about school in order to test the boundaries of learning that shape her
relationship to content, peers, and expert sources of information and
feedback. This is how the cogs in the machine become the liminal heroes
who redesign it. Having rejected the old way, they must now create the
rituals that will come to define the new. They are following in the path
of Oedipus, who took on the inscrutable and intimidating Sphinx, solved
the riddle that had killed others who tried, and ushered out the old
belief systems to pave the way for the Gods of Olympus. Imagine what
would have happened if Oedipus had had the Internet.
# patterns.md
> Although a grounding in learning theory helps inform peer learning
> projects, Peeragogy, at its core, comes to life in applied practice.
> Even before convening a group for your peer learning project, you will
> want to take a look over the patterns we have collected here. You will
> likely return here many times as your project develops.
## What is a pattern?
A pattern is anything that has a repeated effect. In the context of
peeragogy, the practice is to repeat processes and interactions that
advance the learning mission. Frequent occurrences that are not
desirable are called anti-patterns!
> **Christopher Alexander**: “Each pattern describes a problem which
> occurs over and over again in our environment, and then describes the
> core of the solution to that problem, in a way that you can use this
> solution a million times over, without ever doing it the same way
> twice.” [1]
Patterns provide a framework that can be applied to similar issues but
may be metaphorically solved in different ways, sometimes in real world
or face to face events and other times in digital space. Outside of
Alexander's own work in architecture, one the first groups to adopt a
design pattern way of thinking about things were computer programmers.
Writing in the foreward to Richard P. Gabriel's *Patterns of Software*,
Alexander emphasizes that the key question to ask about any design
approach is: does it help us build better?
> **Christopher Alexander**: “What is the Chartres of programming? What
> task is at a high enough level to inspire people writing programs, to
> reach for the stars?” [2]
We think that Peeragogy stands a good chance of being a “killer app” for
pattern-based design. Learning bridges physical and virtual worlds all
the time. And, in fact, a *Network of Learning* was the 18th pattern
that Christopher Alexander introduced in his book, *A Pattern Language*.
> **Christopher Alexander**: "Work in piecemeal ways to decentralize the
> process of learning and enrich it through contact with many places and
> people all over the city: workshops, teachers at home or walking
> through the city, professionals willing to take on the young as
> helpers, older children teaching younger children, museums, youth
> groups travelling, scholarly seminars, industrial workshops, old
> people, and so on." [1]
Peeragogy can help to extend and enrich this network, and, as we shall
see, patterns can be used by those involved to do ongoing “emergent”
design, not only by building new structures, but by adapting and
improving our catalog of patterns as we go. For consistency, and easy
use, adaptation, and extension we present the patterns using the
following template. The format is meant to be neutral and easy to work
with -- it's, intentionally, an outline that you might use to write a
short abstract describing an active project.
> **Title**: *Encapsulate the idea - possibly include a subtitle*
>
> **Definition**: *Explain the idea and the context in which it is
> meaningful. (You can link to other patterns, if they are useful for
> clarifying the relevant context.)*
>
> **Problem**: *Explain why there’s some issue to address here.*
>
> **Solution**: *Talk about an idea about how to address the issue.*
>
> **Challenges**: *Talk about what can go wrong.*
>
> **What’s Next**: *Talk about specific next steps. (Again, link to
> other patterns, if they are useful for clarifying the relevant
> context.)*
>
> The pattern template also includes the following optional elements:
>
> [**Objectives**: *Explain the purpose(s) of the proposed solution’s
> functioning, if they aren't fully specified by the description of the
> solution itself.*]
>
> [**Examples**: *Present example(s) that have been encountered, if this
> aids comprehension.*]
>
> [**References**: *Citations, if relevant.*]
Notice the emphasis the active aspect of things -- the "What's Next"
section concretely links the patterns we discuss here to the Peeragogy
project. If you adapt them for use in your own project, you're likely to
have a different set of next steps. Although we think that these
patterns can be generally useful, they aren't useful in the abstract,
but rather, as a way for discussing what we actually do.
## Patterns of peeragogy
Here is our index of the main patterns we've found so far (described in
more detail after the jump):
- [Wrapper](http://peeragogy.org/patterns/wrapper/) - Front end
appearance to participants. Consolidate and summarize.
- [Discerning a
pattern](http://peeragogy.org/patterns/discerning-a-pattern/) -
Found a pattern? Give it a title and record an example. (Woah,
meta!)
- [Polling for
ideas](http://peeragogy.org/patterns/polling-for-ideas/) - Invite
brainstorming, collecting ideas, questions, and solutions.
- [Creating a guide](http://peeragogy.org/patterns/creating-a-guide/)
- Overviews expose the lay of the land. Collecting content and
stories.
- [Newcomer](http://peeragogy.org/patterns/newcomer/) - Create a guide
for "beginner's mind" and help avoid need to introduce new members
each “meeting.”
- [Roadmap](http://peeragogy.org/patterns/roadmap/) - Plans for future
work, direction towards a goal, dynamic
- [Roles](http://peeragogy.org/patterns/roles/) - Specialize and mix
it up. Play to participants strengths and skills.
- [Project
focus](http://peeragogy.org/focusing-on-a-specific-project/) -
Lightbulb moment: Most specific projects involve learning!
- [Carrying
capacity](http://peeragogy.org/patterns/carrying-capacity/) - Know
your limits, find ways to get other people involved.
- [Heartbeat](http://peeragogy.org/patterns/heartbeat/) - The
"heartbeat" of the group keeps energy flowing.
- [Moderation](http://peeragogy.org/patterns/moderation/) - When
leaders step back, dynamics can improve; moderator serves as
champion and editor.
- [Use or make?](http://peeragogy.org/patterns/praxis-vs-poeisis/) -
Repurposing, tinkering, or creating from scratch?
We'll introduce three additional patterns in the chapter on [researching
peeragogy](http://peeragogy.org/to-peeragogy/researching-peeragogy/ "Researching peeragogy"),
and one more in a short [case
study](http://peeragogy.org/case-study-learning-to-use-technology-with-peers-the-case-of-swats/)
that appears later on in this section.
## Anti-patterns for Peeragogy
And some "anti-patterns" (things to avoid if possible). Note that we use
the same template to talk about both patterns and anti-patterns, but
here, although the proposed solution may look like a good idea
initially, but it doesn't work so well over the long term. Pay
particular attention to the challenges that arise in practice!
- [Isolation](http://peeragogy.org/antipatterns/isolation/) - A tale
of silos, holes, and not-invented-here.
- [Magical
thinking](http://peeragogy.org/antipatterns/magical-thinking/) -
“One meeting will (not) change everything!”
- [Messy with
Lurkers](http://peeragogy.org/antipatterns/co-learning-messy-with-lurkers/)
- What happens when joining is low-cost and completion is
low-benefit.
- [Misunderstanding
Power](http://peeragogy.org/antipatterns/misunderstanding-power/) -
The workload is almost never evenly distributed.
- [Navel Gazing](http://peeragogy.org/antipatterns/navel-gazing/) - "I
have this really great idea..."
- [Stasis](http://peeragogy.org/antipatterns/stasis/) - What is the
driver behind open source, commons-oriented collaborative projects?
(Because, let’s face it, it doesn’t always work.)
- [Stuck at the level of weak
ties](http://peeragogy.org/antipatterns/stuck-at-the-level-of-weak-ties/)
- Can we deepen the connection?
## What is a use case?
A use case describes someone (or something) who uses a given system or
tool to achieve a goal. A use case can include a title, a summary of the
problem, an actor, and a success scenario. Additional features can be
added, such as alternate interactions or choices that lead to a
variation on the result.
The use case considers a given persona (a characteristic role) in a
given situation and shows how they works on a project/problem and how
their process of work is resolved into a solution or solutions. Some
activities do not have a single solution -- these are often referred to
as "Wicked Problems." With detailed bookkeeping effort, recorded
processes can be standardized into use cases that can then be employed
directly or modified to fit the context of the activity at hand. In
short, they are a lot like design patterns, which they may contain in
hidden or explicit form. Use cases are presented in vignettes that
appear throughout the book (like the one at the end of this section).
## A peeragogy pattern language
By looking at how patterns combine in real and hypothetical use cases,
you can start to identify a *pattern language* that can be used in your
projects. We can get a simplified view of these connections with the
following diagram. It's important to clarify that everyone doesn't do it
the same way. Here, the *Roadmap* is given a central position, but some
peer learning projects will forego making a specific, detailed plan;
their plan is just to see what develops. You can see here how peeragogy
patterns often break down further into individual micro-steps: we'll say
more about that shortly.
[](http://peeragogy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/pattern-language.jpg)
The subsequent main sections of this book --
[*Convene*](http://peeragogy.org/convene/ "Convene"),
[*Organize*](http://peeragogy.org/organize/ "Organize"),
[*Cooperate*](http://peeragogy.org/facilitate/ "Facilitate") and
[*Assess*](http://peeragogy.org/assessment/ "Assess") -- represent big
clusters of patterns that are likely to come up time and again in
various projects. We can think of these as East, South, West, and North
in the diagram above. You are of course encouraged to invent your own
patterns and to connect them in new ways. Each project has a unique
design, and it's own unique way in which things play out in practice.
What we've put together here is a starter kit.
> **Christopher Alexander**: These ideas—patterns—are hardly more than
> glimpses of a much deeper level of structure, and is ultimately within
> this deeper level of structure, that the origin of life occurs. [2]
## Patterns and Problem Solving
Ten potentially useful things to do when you're solving a problem are
described by the computer scientist Marvin Minsky in a series of
[m](http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/OLPC-1.html)[e](http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/OLPC-2.html)[m](http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/OLPC-3.html)[o](http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/OLPC-4.html)[s](http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/OLPC-5.html)
written for the One Laptop Per Child project. We can sum them up
visually with the following diagram:
We can also see some interesting connections between these intuitive
problem solving heuristics and peeragogy patterns listed above. This can
help illustrate further connections between the patterns, and some of
the ways that groups can apply them to solve real-world problem. To
elaborate briefly:
- Simplify things for **Newcomers**. We don't expect a newcomer to
enter at full speed.
- Use a **Roadmap** to guide us from one phase to another, while the
project's central **Heartbeat** helps us attend to the central
focus.
- Announce changes through a **Wrapper** who describes the new status
or direction of the project. For the Peeragogy project, that often
meant summing up the high points that we saw over a given period of
time.
- We divide work up not only horizontally among different **Roles**,
but also temporally by using the **Roadmap**. Someone who is moving
ahead with the Roadmap is likely to be working at the leading edge.
- When we find an analogy, we are basically **Creating a Guide** for
thinking about something. This can be used as a form of
"exploration," as we look at how one form of engagement may or may
not map onto other forms of engagement.
- When we ask for help, we may avail ourselves of some **Moderation**
service that will decide how to deal with our request. One simple
way to ask for help is **Polling for Ideas**. Obviously once we
start to get help, we're working in a regime of "collaborative
effort".
- If you know the answer, then you may be able to reuse it (which is
the basic idea described in **Use or Make**.
- It is important to give it a rest so as not to over-exhaust oneself,
busting one's own **Carrying Capacity**, or, alternatively,
overwhelming the group.
- It seems that one of the things that experts are good at is
**Discerning a Pattern**. This allows them to simplify their
processing.
- Finally, again, if we know why it is hard, then we may be able to
**Create a Guide** that will help get around, or at least better
cope with, the difficulty.
### References
1. Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., and Silverstein, M. (1977). *A Pattern
Language: Towns, Buildings, and, Construction*, New York: Oxford
University Press.
2. Gabriel, Richard P. (1996). *[Patterns of
Software](http://dreamsongs.net/Files/PatternsOfSoftware.pdf)*, New
York: Oxford University Press. (Includes a foreward by Christopher
Alexander.)
# pattern_story.md
*October, 2011*. Tom's day-job involves finding patterns in market data
(see [Kevin Slavin’s TED
talk](http://www.ted.com/talks/kevin_slavin_how_algorithms_shape_our_world.html)).
He reads philosophy and does some other programming work in his spare
time. However, he doesn't take the Occupy Wall Street protest very
seriously. But one of these evenings, one of the protestors catches his
attention. She’s dressed rather strikingly. They talk, and he comes away
thinking about something she said: “*[All our grievances are
interconnected](http://www.nycga.net/files/2011/11/DeclarationFlowchart_v2_large.jpg).*”
What if all the solutions are interconnected too? Night time: Tom
becomes increasingly obsessed with this idea. He’s pulling down lots of
web pages from the internet — again, looking for patterns. What would it
take for OWS folks to solve the problems they worry so much about? He
starts working on a tool that’s geared towards learning and sharing
skills, while working on real projects. At first, it’s just hackers who
are using the tool, but over time they adapt it for popular use. Things
start to get interesting… [caption id="" align="aligncenter"
width="465"][](http://peeragogy.org/a-pattern-story/matrix/)
Multiple PSK31 transmissions on the 20m digital modes band at around
14.07 MHz. [Public Domain
image](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PSK_matrix.jpg) by
User:Mysid[/caption]
# convening.md
Authors: Gigi Johnson and Joe Corneli
> So you've decided you want to try peer learning? Maybe you've already
> found a few people who will support you in this effort.
> Congratulations! It's time now to focus your thinking. How will you
> convene others to form a suitable group? How will you design a learner
> experience which will make your project thrive? In this chapter, we
> suggest a variety of questions that will help you to make your project
> more concrete for potential new members. There are no good or bad
> answers - it depends on the nature of your project and the context.
> Trying to answer the questions is not something you do just once. At
> various stages of the project, even after it's over, some or all of
> those questions will aquire new meanings - and probably new answers.
> **Fabrizio Terzi**: "There is a force of attraction that allows
> aggregation into groups based on the degree of personal interest; the
> ability to enhance and improve the share of each participant; the
> expectation of success and potential benefit."
## Group identity
Note that there are many groups that may not need to be “convened",
since they already exist. There is a good story from [A. T.
Ariyaratne](http://www.sarvodayausa.org/learn/a-t-ariyartne/) in his
[collected
works](http://www.sarvodaya.org/about/philosophy/collected-works-vol-1/rural-self-help)
in which he does “convene" a natural group (namely, a village) - but in
any case, keep in mind at the outset that the degree of
group-consciousness that is necessary for peer learning to take place is
not fixed. In this section, we suppose you are just at the point of
kicking off a project. What steps should you take? We suggest you take a
moment to ponder the following questions first - and revisit them
afterward, as a way to identify best practices for the next effort.
## There will be a quiz
Those taking the initiative should ask themselves the traditional Who,
What, Where, When, Why, and How. ([Simon
Sinek](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Sinek "Sinek - Wikipedia bio")
suggests to begin with Why, and we touched on Who, above!). In doing so,
preliminary assumptions for design and structure are established.
However, in peer learning it is particularly important to maintain a
healthy degree of openness, so that future group members can also form
their answers on those questions. In particular, this suggests that the
design and structure of the project (and the group) may change over
time. Here, we riff on the traditional 5W's+H with six clusters of
questions to help you focus your thinking about the project and amplify
its positive outcomes.
[caption id="" align="aligncenter"
width="300"] Engraving
of Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936). "I keep six honest serving-men (They
taught me all I knew)"[/caption]
## Expectations for participants
**1. Who: Roles and flux**
- What are some of the roles that people are likely to fall into (e.g.
Newcomer, Wrapper, Lurker, Aggregator, etc.)?
- How likely is it that participants will stick with the project? If
you expect many participants to leave, how will this effect the
group and the outcome?
- Do you envision new people joining the group as time goes by? If so,
what features are you designing that will support their integration
into an existing flow?
- Will the project work if people dip in and out? If so, what features
support that? If not, how will people stay focused?
**2. What: Nature of the project**
- What skills are required? What skills are you trying to build?
- What kinds of change will participants undergo? Will they be heading
into new ground? Changing their minds about something? Learning
about learning?
- What social objective, or "product" if any, is the project aiming to
achieve?
- What's the 'hook?' Unless you are working with an existing group, or
re-using an existing modality, consistent participation may not be a
given.
**3. When: Time management**
- What do you expect the group to do, from the moment it convenes, to
the end of its life-span, to create the specific outcome that will
exist at the conclusion of its last meeting? (C. Gersick.) Note that
what people ACTUALLY do may be different from what you envision at
the outset, so you may want to revisit this question (and your
answer) again as the project progresses.
- Keeping in mind that at least one period of is inertia is very
likely (C. Gersick), what event(s) do you anticipate happening in
the group that will bring things back together, set a new direction,
or generally get things on track? More generally, what kinds of
contingencies does your group face? How does it interface to the
"outside world"?
- What pre-existing narratives or workflows could you copy in your
group?
- How much of a time commitment do you expect from participants? Is
this kind of commitment realistic for members of your group?
- What, if anything, can you do to make participation "easy" in the
sense that it happens in the natural flow of life for group members?
- Does everyone need to participate equally? How might non-equal
participation play out for participants down the line?
**4. Where: Journey vs Destination **
- What structures will support participants in their journey to the
end result(s) you (or they) have envisioned? What content can you
use to flesh out this structure?
- Where can the structure "flex" to accommodate unknown developments
or needs as participants learn, discover, and progress?
**5. Why: Tool/platform choice**
- What tools are particularly suited to this group? Consider such
features as learning styles and experiences, geographical diversity,
the need for centralization (or de-centralization), cultural
expectations related to group work, sharing, and emerging
leadership.
- Is there an inherent draw to this project for a given population, or
are you as facilitator going to have to work at keeping people
involved? How might your answer influence your choice of tools? Is
the reward for completion the learning itself, or something more
tangible?
- In choosing tools, how do you prioritize such values and objectives
as easy entry, diverse uses, and high ceilings for sophisticated
expansion?
**6. How: Linearity vs Messiness**
- How will your group manage feedback in a constructive way?
- Why might participants feel motivated to give feedback?
- How firm and extensive are the social contracts for this group? Do
they apply to everyone equally, or do they vary with participation
level?
- What do people need to know at the start? What can you work out as
you go along? Who decides?
- How welcome are "meta-discussions"? What kinds of discussions are
not likely to be welcome? Do you have facilities in place for
"breakout groups" or other peer-to-peer interactions?
(Alternatively, if the project is mostly distributed, do you have
any facilities in place for coming together as a group?)
## Cycles of group development
The above questions remain important thoughout the life of the project.
People may come and go, particpants may propose fundamentally new
approaches, people may evolve from lurkers to major content creators or
vice-versa. The questions we suggest can be most effective if your group
discusses them over time, as part of its workflow, using synchronous
online meetings (e.g., [Big Blue Button](http://www.bigbluebutton.org/),
[Adobe
Connect](http://success.adobe.com/en/na/sem/products/connect/1109_6011_connect_webinars.html?sdid=IEASO&skwcid=TC%7C22191%7Cadobe%20connect%7C%7CS%7Ce%7C5894715262),
[Blackboard
Collaborate](http://www.blackboard.com/platforms/collaborate/overview.aspx)),
forums, Google docs, wikis, and/or email lists. Regular meetings are one
way to establish a "heartbeat" for the group.
In thinking about other ways of structuring things, note that the "body"
of the *Peeragogy Handbook* follows a [Tuckman-like
outline](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forming-storming-norming-performing)
(*Convening a Group* is our "forming", *Organizing a Learning Context*
is our "storming and norming", *Co-working/Facilitation* is our
"performing", and *Assessment* is our "adjourning"). But we agree with
Gersick [1], and Engeström [2], that groups do not always follow a
linear or cyclical pattern with their activities!
Nevertheless, there may be some specific stages or phases that you want
*your* group to go through. Do you need some "milestones," for example?
How will you know when you've achieved "success?"
In closing, it is worth reminding you that it is natural for groups to
experience conflict, especially as they grow or cross other threshold
points or milestones - or perhaps more likely, when they don't cross
important milestones in a timely fashion (ah, so you remember those
milestones from the previous section!). Nevertheless, there are some
strategies can be used to make this conflict productive, rather than
merely destructive (see Ozturk and Simsek [3]).
## References
1. Engeström, Y. (1999). Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing
cycles of knowledge creation in practice. In Y. Engeström, R.
Miettinen & R.-L-. Punamäki (Eds.), *Perspectives on activity
theory*, (pp. 377-404). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
2. Gersick, C. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new
model of group development. *Academy of Management Journal* 31
(Oct.): 9-41.
3. Ozturk and Simsek, "Of Conflict in Virtual Learning Communiities in
the Context of a Democratic Pedagogy: A paradox or sophism?," in
*Proceedings of the Networked Learning Conference, 2012, Maastricht.
*[Video](http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/edres/seminars/Ozturk300311.htm "Video of presentation (requires Flash)")
or
[text.](http://networkedlearningconference.org.uk/abstracts/pdf/ozturk.pdf "PDF of presentation (requires pdf reader)")
# play.md
Once more we’re back to the question, “What makes learning fun?” There
are deep links between play and learning. Consider, for instance, the
way we learn the rules of a game through playing it. The first times we
play a card game, or a physical sport, or a computer simulation we test
out rule boundaries as well as our understanding. Actors and
role-players learn their roles through the dynamic process of
performance. The resulting learning isn’t absorbed all at once, but
accretes over time through an emergent process, one unfolding further
through iterations. In other words, the more we play a game, the more we
learn it.
In addition to the rules of play, we learn about the subject which play
represents, be it a strategy game (chess, for example) or simulation of
economic conflict. Good games echo good teaching practice, too, in that
they structure a single player’s experience to fit their regime of
competence (cf. Vygotsky’s zone of proximal learning, a la Gee [1]).
That is to say a game challenges players at a level suited to their
skill and knowledge: comfortable enough that play is possible, but so
challenging as to avoid boredom, eliciting player growth. Role-playing
in theater lets performers explore and test out concepts; see Boal [2].
Further, adopting a playful attitude helps individuals meet new
challenges with curiousity, along with a readiness to mobilize ideas and
practical knowledge. Indeed, the energy activated by play can take a
person beyond an event’s formal limitations, as players can assume that
play can go on and on [3].
> **Douglas Thomas and John Seely Brown**: “All systems of play are, at
> base, learning systems.” [4]
Games have always had a major social component, and learning plays a key
role in that interpersonal function. Using games to build group cohesion
is an old practice, actually a triusm in team sports.
It is important to locate our peeragogical moment in a world where
gaming is undergoing a renaissance. Not only has digital gaming become a
large industry, but gaming has begun to infiltrate non-gaming aspects of
the world, sometimes referred to as “gamification.” Putting all three of
these levels together, we see that we can possibly improve co-learning
by adopting a playful mindset. Such a playful attitude can then mobilize
any or all of the above advantages. For example,
- Two friends are learning the Russian language together. They invent
a vocabulary game: one identifies an object in the world, and the
other must name it in Russian. They take turns, each challenging the
other, building up their common knowledge.
- A middle-aged man decides to take up hiking. The prospect is
somewhat daunting, since he’s a very proud person and is easily
stymied by learning something from scratch. So he adopts a “trail
name”, a playful pseudonym. This new identity lets him set-aside his
self-importance and risk making mistakes. Gradually he grows
comfortable with what his new persona learns.
- We can also consider the **design** field as a useful kind of
playful peeragogy. The person *playing the role* of the designer can
select the contextual frame within which the design is performed.
This frame can be seen as the *rules* governing the design, the
artifact and the process. These rules, as with some games, may
change over time. Therefore the possibility to adapt, to tailor
one’s activities to changing context is important when designing
playful learning activities. (And we’ll look at some ways to design
peer learning experiences next!)
Of course, "game-based learning" can be part of standard pedagogy too.
When peers create the game themselves, this presumably involves both
game-based learning and peer learning. Classic strategy games like
[Go](http://senseis.xmp.net/?MythOfOrigin) and
[Chess](http://www.amazon.com/Chess-Success-Using-Strengths-Children/dp/0767915682)
also provide clear examples of peer learning practices: the question is
partly, what skills and mindsets do our game-related practices really
teach?
> **Socrates**: "No compulsory learning can remain in the soul . . . ln
> teaching children, train them by a kind of game, and you will be able
> to see more clearly the natural bent of each." (quoted by Thomas
> Malone [5])
### Exercises that can help you cultivate a playful attitude
- Use the [Oblique Strategies](http://www.rtqe.net/ObliqueStrategies/)
card deck (Brian Eno and Peter Schmidt, 1st edition 1975, now
available in its fifth edition) to spur playful creativity. Each
card advises players to change their creative process, often in
surprising directions.
- Take turns making and sharing videos. This online collaborative
continuous video storytelling involves a group of people creating
short videos, uploading them to YouTube, then making playlists of
results. Similar to [Clip Kino](http://clipkino.info/), only online.
- Engage in theater play using Google+ Hangout. e.g. coming together
with a group of people online and performing theatrical performances
on a shared topic that are recorded.
## References
1. Gee, J. P. (1992). *The social mind: Language, ideology, and social
practice*. Series in language and ideology. New York: Bergin &
Garvey.
2. Boal, A. (1979). *Theatre of the oppressed*. 3rd ed. London: Pluto
Press.
3. Bereiter, C. and Scadamalia, M. (1993). *Surpassing ourselves, an
inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise*. Peru,
Illinois: Open Court.
4. Douglas Thomas and John Seely Brown (2011), *A New Culture of
Learning: Cultivating the Imagination for a World of Constant
Change*. CreateSpace.
5. Malone, T.W. (1981), Toward a Theory of Intrinsically Motivating
Instruction, *Cognitive Science*, 4, pp. 333-369
# k12.md
*Author*: Verena Roberts Teachers have a reputation of working in
isolation, of keeping their learning to themselves and on their own
islands. They are also known for generously sharing resources with one
another. It is this latter trait that is becoming increasingly important
as the role of the educator continues to expand. As educational
technology research specialist Stephen Downes
[observes](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-downes/the-role-of-the-educator_b_790937.html),
the expectations on teachers have grown from “being expert in the
discipline of teaching and pedagogy...[to needing to have] up-to-date
and relevant knowledge and experience in it. Even a teacher of basic
disciplines such as science, history or mathematics must remain
grounded, as no discipline has remained stable for very long, and all
disciplines require a deeper insight in order to be taught effectively.”
It is no longer possible for an educator to work alone to fulfil each of
these roles: the solution is to work and learn in collaboration with
others. This is where peer-based sharing and learning online,
connected/networked learning, or peeragogy, can play an important role
in helping educators.
## Becoming a connected/networked learner
The following steps are set out in ‘phases’ in order to suggest possible
experiences one may encounter when becoming connected. It is
acknowledged that every learner is different and these ‘phases’ only
serve as a guide.
### Phase 1: Deciding to take the plunge
To help educators begin to connect, the [Connected Educator’s Starter
Kit](http://www.google.com/url?q=https://dl.dropbox.com/u/38904447/starter-kit-final.pdf&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNE9sNo1Lz9-zJ0KH48djXeYVoAF4A)
was created during Connected Educator’s Month in August 2012. This
article previews the main steps. The first step to becoming a ‘connected
educator-learner’ involves making the commitment to spending the time
you'll need to learn how to learn and share in an open, connected
environment.
### Phase 2: Lurking
We start off as lurkers. A learner can be considered a true ‘lurker’
after reviewing the starter kit, establishing a digital presence
(through a blog or a wiki) or signing up for Twitter and creating a
basic profile containing a photo. In this phase, lurkers will begin to
['follow' other users on
Twitter](http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.fractuslearning.com/2012/05/25/twitter-follow-education-technology/&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNF8grPMuRwU_ImW9Jk3ZYrg0m9KgQ)
and observe [educational Twitter
'chats'](http://www.google.com/url?q=http://cybraryman.com/chats.html&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFJASZiwfvPbfOzFbHvAunpXfNC1g).
Lurkers will also begin to seek out other resources through
[blogs](http://theinnovativeeducator.blogspot.ca/2012/04/ten-best-education-blogs.html),
[Facebook](http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.edsocialmedia.com/2011/02/the-advantage-of-facebook-groups-in-education/&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEvc43Q7GqJqS-2S8GhEJ53Ye-j4Q),
[Edmodo](http://www.slideshare.net/cmsdsquires/edmodo-for-teachers-guide)
and
[LinkedIn](http://www.emergingedtech.com/2012/02/8-great-linkedin-groups-for-educators/)
groups.
### Phase 3: Entering the fray
The lurker begins to develop into a connected educator-learner once he
or she makes the decision to enter into a dialogue with another user.
This could take the form of a personal blog post, participation on an
education-related
[blog](http://edudemic.com/2012/08/education-blogs/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed)
or
[wiki](http://educationalwikis.wikispaces.com/Examples+of+educational+wikis)
or a an exchange with another Twitter user. Once this exchange takes
place, relationships may begin to form and the work towards building a
Personal Learning Network (PLN) begins.
One such site where such relationships can be built is [Classroom
2.0](http://www.classroom20.com/), which was founded by [Steve
Hargadon.](http://www.stevehargadon.com/) Through Classroom 2.0, Steve
facilitates a number of free online learning opportunities including
weekly [Blackboard
Collaborate](http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.futureofeducation.com/notes/Past_Interviews&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHVYOvP-w7NTgKp2Fu2AX4YycnPQQ)
sessions, conferences, book projects and grassroots cross-country
educational-transformation tours. Classroom 2.0 also offers a supportive
Social Ning—a free, social learning space that provides online
conferences and synchronous and recorded interviews with inspirational
educators—for connected educator-learners around the world.
### Phase 4: Building and shaping your PLN
Just as not every person one meets becomes a friend, it is important to
remember that not every exchange will lead to a co-learning peeragogy
arrangement. It may be sufficient to follow another who provides useful
content without expecting any reciprocation. It is dependent on each
educator-learner to determine who to pay attention to and what learning
purpose that individual or group will serve. It is also up to the
learner-educator to demonstrate to others that he or she will actively
participate.
There are a number of
[strategies](http://storify.com/digiphile/how-to-build-a-personal-learning-network-on-twitte)
one can use when shaping the PLN to learn. However, one of the best ways
educators can attract a core of *peeragogues* is by sharing actively and
demonstrating active and open learning for others.
There are a number of sites where a new educator-learner can actively
and openly learn. In addition to personal blogging and wikis, other
professional development opportunities include open, online courses and
weekly synchronous online meetings through video, podcasts or other
forms of media.
Examples include: [Connected Learning
TV](http://connectedlearning.tv/howard-rheingold-social-media-and-peer-learning-mediated-pedagogy-peeragogy),
[TechTalkTuesdays](http://techtalktuesdays.global2.vic.edu.au/),
[VolunteersNeeded](http://learning2gether.pbworks.com/w/page/32206114/volunteersneeded),
[SimpleK12](http://simplek12.com/webinars), [K12
Online,](http://k12onlineconference.org/)
[CEET](http://www.learnnowbc.ca/educators/moodlemeets/default.aspx), and
[EdTechTalk](http://edtechtalk.com/taxonomy/term/130).
Alternatively, courses are offered with
[P2PU’s](https://p2pu.org/en/schools/school-of-ed-pilot/) School of
Education or a wide variety of other opportunities collected by
[TeachThought](http://www.teachthought.com/ "Useful, thoughful ed/tech blog")
and Educator's CPD online. Peggy George, the co-faciliator of the weekly
Classroom 2.0 LIVE Sessions, created a livebinder package of free ‘[PD
On
Demand](http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.livebinders.com/play/play_or_edit?id=429095&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHCIdRn64rPwske2vP7xrpWolb-jA)’
connected professional development online options for peeragogy
enthusiasts.
### Stage 5: Extending the digital PLN and connecting face-to-face
Over time, once the connected educator-learner has established a refined
PLN, these peeragogues may choose to shift their learning into physical
learning spaces. Some options available for these educator-learners
would include the new ‘grassroots unconferences’, which include examples
such as: [EduCon](http://educonphilly.org/),
[EdCamps](http://davidwees.com/content/what-edcamp),
[THATcamp](http://thatcamp.org/) and
[ConnectedCA](http://connectedcanada.org/).
These (un)conferences are free or extremely low-cost and focus on
learning from and with others. These ‘unconferences’ are typically
publicized through Twitter, Google Apps, and Facebook. Connecting
face-to-face with other peeragogues can strengthen bonds to learning
networks and help to promote their sustainability.
## Postscript
Sylvia Tolisano, Rodd Lucier and Zoe Branigan-Pipen co-created an
[infographic](http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8160/7161689001_9b6725a4ca_h.jpg)
that which explores the experiences individuals may encounter in the
journey to become connected learners through another related sequence of
steps: *Lurker*, *Novice*, *Insider*, *Colleague*, *Collaborator*,
*Friend*, and *Confidant*. Check it out, and also have a look at our
[Recommended
Readings](http://peeragogy.org/recommended-reading/ "Recommended Reading")
for some additional resources.
# sole.md
Author: Jan Herder
> From this conversational piece you can engage in a journey to affect
> your learning space through many points of entry interacting with the
> physical one. We hope to inspire emerging structure and reciprocal
> mentoring to create a ripple effect for those willing to open the door
> to a new possible world.
[caption id="" align="alignnone"
width="540"][](https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/m119p5TEeC2AwVv3rcDRLscSjbCQX1HE0iarrlEuYxYJVvqmSjinIHzMVtlwGOMfZNc8qHbQYsYdtOqkF6pjl-ts3WHUFu4NXyguaDsJTVqTWeFnT2mTH02w6A)
A visualization of the facilitated peer to peer SOLE (Self-Organized
Learning Environment) [/caption]
## The Guiding Strategy:
In his [Peeragogical Case
Study](http://peeragogy.org/case-study-5ph1nx/) David Preston states:
> Peeragogical interaction requires refining relational and topical
> critique, as well as skills in other “meta” literacies, including but
> not limited to critical thinking, collaboration, conflict resolution,
> decision-making, mindfulness, patience and compassion. (from Case
> Study: 5PH1NX [1]).
A [Self-Organizing Learning
Environment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_Organised_Learning_Environment),
or SOLE, with a living structure accomplishes all of these outcomes, or
David’s “meta-literacies,’’ simultaneously. An authentic problem and/or
project based activity in a connected learning environment includes
diverse learners in diverse ways by empowering all learners as peers.
This provides the authentic learning environment with which to design a
SOLE. SOLEs are everywhere. How have we evolved as a species, if not
through self-organizing? A conversation between strangers is self
organizing, each learning about something or each other. The spaces
around people conversing is also an environment, though not explicitly a
learning one. While we are always self-organizing to learn or accomplish
things, one place that SOLEs do not always exist are in learning
institutions. In many educational institutions, our learning
environments are predominately organized by the teacher, curriculum, or
society. How can we nurture peer to peer learning environments to
organize? How does the role of the teacher differ in a SOLE? In what
ways can we unite that fundamental, passionate human characteristic of
curiosity and self-organizing back into our Learning Environments? The
model that [Sugata Mitra](http://sugatam.wikispaces.com/) [2] is
experimenting with gives us some scaffolding to create one ourselves.
This is the goal of his [SOLE Tool
Kit](http://www.ted.com/pages/sole_toolkit) (3). Sugata’s kit is
directed towards children between 8 and 12 years old. I was wondering if
there is a way to make it more universal in its application. How can I
apply it to my situation? How is a SOLE different in the context of peer
to peer learning? This chapter of the Handbook uses Sugata’s model as a
doorway into our understanding a SOLE approach to peer to peer learning.
Its three key components are: learners, context and project. I find the
discussion needs to integrate what we are learning about diverse
learners into a [Universal Design for
Learning](http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguidelines) [4] context.
After all, we cannot take for granted who the peers are in the SOLE.
Equally, the context, the learning environment (LE) must be as deeply
considered as the learners participating. As a learning designer, I am
also seeking more clues about the living structure of a well crafted
SOLE.
[](https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/UMoSK0Qr2zeCPdjVLvceq9_jj9XcVKQcbNGL5r99e9DkZTZ3S6e6NEfx1NHXpH9MNAPxiUIoVU1lhqqS9hnm_g_8Sc2-FfzS8O2-LRhBR0copHWApHVF9LFi0w)
## Centers within the Center
SOLEs exist in a particular context. Take Sugata’s [hole in the
wall](http://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_shows_how_kids_teach_themselves.html)
[5] experiment. The parameters of the environment of a computer embedded
in a wall in India are very specific. Sugata’s act was to design a
project in order to facilitate a process within that environment. The
elements he introduced were a touch screen computer embedded in a wall
with specific software. Sugata has abstracted this design into a Tool
Kit. He speaks of ‘Child Driven Learning’, intrinsically motivated
learning with the curiosity to learn something in particular. As a
learner-centric peeragogy, SOLEs are emergent, bottom up, seeking to
answer: How do we design a project (or phrase a problem) that ignites a
learner’s passion? A SOLE is a facilitated learning environment (LE)
that can nurture learner driven activity. For instance, in the Hole in
the Wall example, the design is the context of the wall, the street, the
neighborhood --and the facilitation is the touch screen monitor in the
wall. They are brilliantly united. In this sense it is an intentional,
self-aware learning environment. It is a strange foreign object that
anyone would have to figure out how it works to take advantage of. But
this is not in the classroom, or in the ‘school.’ It is an informal LE.
Just like [learning a
game](http://www.academia.edu/1137269/Game-based_Learning_and_Intrinsic_Motivation)
[6], there is an entire ecology that surrounds you. This is very much a
systemic approach. The context is facilitated explicitly (your design of
the SOLE), but also implicitly in the [hidden
curriculum](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_curriculum) [7] that
defines your LE. Above is the layout of the [transformed learning
environment](http://www.scribd.com/doc/181089012/Transformed-Learning-Environment-Analysis)
[8] I explored to work around the hidden curriculum of the traditional
classroom. The LE has a tremendous, if not [overwhelming influence, on
learning](http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-09232007-220306/unrestricted/SElmasryETDbodytext.pdf)
[9]. The first step in connected learning is to reconnect to the
environment around us. For me, the primary context of my LE is a
performing arts center at a small rural liberal arts college. The
Performing Arts Center is a Center within the context of the college and
community. A diversity of spaces within the facility are inhabited:
small and cozy, large and public, technology embedded everywhere, all
focused on the project based learning that emerges producing a
performance. I stay away from a formal classroom as much as possible.
These spaces are Centers within the Center, [‘loosely connected adaptive
complex
systems](http://nourdiab.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/the-theories-of-christopher-alexander/)’
[10] within themselves, just like people. I believe that the possibility
of a SOLE emerging as a living structure seems to depend on the correct
types of complex systems engaged in the LE.
[](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/XvWGujTNTaXjQR5CjiehM9trvHVfTeJ_QJU-CBMXIeO-YvAs1aidD9M5aQs29iiy8yJIAgIHkV5yVduwPnNVoNMI8ZRjsBkIgbrd3VyoWC_s9oVnXD9cQpMygg)
What is the role of the internet in your design? Mitigating inequalities
and accommodating diverse learners are somewhat assisted by access to
the internet. But it is the immediate, [just-in-time
learning](http://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2013/10/02/just-in-time-information-hacks)
[11] that makes free and open access to the world wide web so important
in a SOLE. Wireless is available throughout this LE. Nooks and lounges,
interconnected, but separate rooms, provide lots of places for
collaboration or solitary work, for staying connected or hiding out. In
a UDL vision of a facilitated peer to peer SOLE, technology is integral
to the design. In the case of my LE, with the use of digital audio,
multi-media, database management, robotic lighting and
[dichroic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichroic_filter) [12] colors,
learners are accustomed to accessing and augmenting reality with
technology: allowing learners to access their social media is part of
their content creation.
[](https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/7vaPyGQPIcioXxPAuWiX43bad8sb0csDhoqV-zTXMb1cJuqq4khyBjBgH3ILMx1xDrhxE1KFms12-6owKh02mLyiGoMo8DShcK3tDICyG3NZSvB-BKnq5NTZpQ)
Do we start our SOLE as peers? Peer to peer assumes your participants
are peers--especially you, the facilitator. There needs to be enough
diversity and complexity to include all learners, engendering a
[Universally Designed
Context](http://www.cast.org/library/UDLguidelines/) [13]. What is the
role of diversity in peer to peer SOLE building? How are diverse
learners peers? In my LE, I discovered 70% of my learners have learning
challenges. I know my LE is not unique in this regard. I have to
facilitate a SOLE design that is inclusive. This is in contradistinction
to commonality, yet this diversity is what we crave, for creativity and
innovation, for deep learning to occur. Crafting your SOLE using
multiple means of representation, expression and engagement empowers
learners to be peers. A diverse learning environment, supporting diverse
learning styles and diverse learners, supports a complex project based
SOLE. But there are many SOLEs within the SOLE since learning is
occurring on many levels with each student and within each group. We do
not all get the same thing at the same time. Learning outcomes are
diverse, emergent, serendipitous.
[](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/xCkD4VgSdw4QBuantlXDeMS3XkltvRGYkCssaaQoWMwF8QhBbcaNRGb3KhHyaZr2TFe0hJN0a92fvdvCqClraxqcSPAXw9AYusQZetuh5zNWimRbsR_RCMX8TA)
What type of project, problem or event will focus your efforts? Either a
[learner generated syllabus
[](http://www.theatreprof.com/2011/active-learning-student-generated-syllabus/)14]
may emerge from the SOLE, or a [user generated
education](http://usergeneratededucation.wordpress.com/) [15] within a
specific context may answer this question. Ownership and leadership
emerge when learners can apply their creativity and/or authentically
assist each other in a common goal. Opportunities to design and modify
even small things will draw learners into a project. The more they must
rely on each other, collaborate and share their creativity, their
designs and actualization--the more they work together as peers. The
spaces in your LE are most likely already designed and built to
accommodate the purpose of the facility in the context of the college or
school. We cannot really redesign the actual space, but we can redesign
many aspects. We can look for designs within it. Being able to design
your own space, or project, is critical to taking ownership of your
learning and experiencing the consequences. As learners mature and look
for ways to be more involved, I suggest they redesign the shop, the
repertory lighting plot, or the procedures of their department and/or
SOLE overall. Exchanging roles as designer also stimulates peer
interaction. Why not integrate design and design thinking? In my
context, lighting, scene, costume and sound design are interconnected
opportunities. Along with accompanying technology, every opportunity is
used to nurture empathy, creativity, rationality and systems thinking.
Integral to the learner generated syllabus or project design should be
continuous artifact creation. A great place to start the design process
and to begin to generate content is by using a virtual world.
[](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/YECL0CUtGUQFBHs-YY_V8dbt1BdKC-5ilTvS8yL8umuyqbG8uvFen0EDHdhG1GyxQUyj--oGxM9jjEJ409_V6_CjdCdvgg2fY4ixWe6RcSpdhGd8oyFSc3Axug)
Constant content creation can integrate assessment into your SOLE. It is
the quality of the artifacts created along the way that reveals the
success of your SOLE. Media that chronicles a journey through time,
created by each learner, reveals the depth of participation. It is
nearly impossible to cheat. The learner expresses their comprehension in
the types and extent of artifact creation.
[](https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/x0Dq6XPJb-AyLUJjxZdNjQcsgv02cYiXYQd0t8twVeKcoTFHHiLAxR5Aik4BqugxUU_fKtU1O_1EpM2eFXrUebs-PTn6tIuJix-dvF2KTSTiVKFr3pgnIaXQPg)
As the facilitator, I look for opportunities to introduce the
unexpected, bigger questions, deeper considerations, along the way. For
example, in the context of my LE, one of the events feature Tibetan
Monks. They bring a counterpoint to the inflated egos and cult of
personality which is prevalent in our context. The SOLE Plan is
extended. It can happen over a much longer amount of time than one class
or one day. The actors rehearse for weeks, as the design team designs,
giving time for: research, absorption, misleads, mistakes, correction
and reflection. A SOLE needs time and persistence to generate artifacts,
documentation and experiences of the project and virtual worlds are an
excellent way to extend time and space synchronously and asynchronously.
[](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/hqfznCoGLkhJ-HcwH1fFVp6xE8vJObDUsrUPJT0Cn3krbdz-0B9FRbm-Xl1JnfwW8RS_Sol5L4O_eRPhTdAHfcy7H0k9S5nbJmuAv1ICpO40EYcYkgtE1lRNKQ)
Sugata emphasizes the Big questions. We do not always know what they
are. A focus? A goal? A product? And the event? That should be decided
with the group. The learners intuit the direction that leads to deep
engagement and the bigger questions. I try and leave it ambiguous,
suggesting some of the things they might encounter. Facilitating the
SOLE in this context, we face endless questions connected to the
specific LE, to all the imaginary scenarios, Herculean tasks and
questions-- like building castles, programming a digital sound console,
troubleshooting robotic lighting instruments, how to make the illusion
of fire or, even, who killed Charlemagne? The Box Office is an example
of an informal SOLE that has emerged recurrently over time. I have
noticed that its vitality depends on the characters and the ebb and flow
of learners entering the group or graduating. The physical space is a
small, windowless and often damp room with a couple of couches and a
desk with a computer squeezed in. My very own ‘Hole in the Wall’
experiment. The bottom of the door can remain closed, while the top is
open, like a stable. Primarily the students are paid to be there,
answering the phone, reserving tickets, greeting patrons and managing
the Box Office and the Front of the House. In the SOLE, this subtle
inversion of the institutional value proposition turns ‘work study’ into
studying work. This is an informal LE nested within the context of the
formal institution and the wider LE: a center within a center. Some
semesters there are business majors working their way up the job ladder:
Usher to Assistant Front of House Manager, to Assistant Box Office
Manager, to Box Office Manager. Sometimes this takes 4 years, sometimes
it happens in a semester or two. It is a recursive SOLE that differs as
the interests and skills of the students who inhabit the space change.
As the current manager puts it, the Box Office is a ‘constantly evolving
puzzle.’
[](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/FoKOGkHwwHldfC20KK3OZDMABe1Zrj-zSiskycTpAP5pMc3KiTx4LqaE88LkZktLrpb0dlppurOgbHsts8kme0YAanJ3G-abVH3DYAgy5VqSQRKXPwnEa975QQ)
This example of a SOLE in an informal LE is similar to the other types
of SOLE’s that occur within a facilitated LE. The learner’s interact as
reciprocal apprentices, leaning on one another to solve challenges and
problems. Groups are self-selective, this type of work suits their
temperament and interests, or time. This cohort is almost a clique,
attracting their boyfriends and girlfriends. They begin initiatives,
re-design the lobby for crowd control, redecorate and rearrange the
space constantly, decide their schedules and split up responsibility.
Everyone is always training everyone, because the environment turns over
each semester. It is explicitly an informal LE. The workers are
students. This inverts the usual state of affairs, where essentially
they are being paid to learn, though they may not even be aware of it.
Occasionally, the learning experience resonates deeply with them. A
number of them have used the experience to leverage jobs that parallel
their interests, or get them started on their careers. Job titles, roles
of responsibility, are often problematic in a SOLE. The bottom line is
that as peers we are all equal and at certain times everyone is expected
to do everything regardless of their roles. Titles go to people’s heads.
But this is part of the experience. Keep the titles moving, change it up
when things get bottlenecked over personalities. Sometimes I create
duplicate positions, Assistants of Assistants. and Department Heads. The
Apprenticeship model is at play but in a new way in a SOLE. There are
peers and there are peers. As power struggles emerge, some like-to-like
grouping occurs. The role of the facilitator becomes mediator. The
emergent epistemology of abundance and connected learning asks for a
multitude of ‘experts.’ In the same way, leadership can be distributed,
flowing as varying needs arise.
[](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/EMnmI4H1eE36r8Jzb_nkKg9QX_-B-UTEm3t54f5BEmKGvN04-BL5OyrQnjOhwxPXk5uMnibtE51-p4vS_oHD37pUZskhZXa2vUK0gVuI_CcflI8pAo3OSaO94Q)
The experience of practicing leadership skills and encountering all the
variables of working with diverse folks quickly gives feedback to us if
this is a helpful role for this person. It is messy sometimes, and there
are conflicts. After a few events, they learn how to manage a Box
Office, dealing with patrons, emergencies, complaints and bag check.
They confront the larger peer group, the student body, with authority
and empathy. They are very proud of their jobs and make their own name
tags with titles. A hierarchy gives them rewards that they have been
trained to expect from years in school. It is another way of developing
intrinsic motivation and challenges them to interact with their peers
authentically. As facilitator, I try to leave them alone as much as
possible. The context has been created, the computer in the wall is on a
desk. Extending the design of your SOLE contributes to its living
structure. I have used [Facebook as a Supplemental
LMS](http://community.telecentre.org/profiles/blogs/facebook-as-a-supplemental-lms)
[16] since 2007 because this is where my students are and it allows them
to control the structures of groups emergently. The learners create the
groups as they are relevant. The facilitator does not. Usually they
invite me in! For now, Facebook aggregates the learning community that
the SOLE inspires as learners become leaders, establish connections with
each other and mentor newbies. This activity is integrated into artifact
creation, ‘comments’ and documentation of their personal learning
journey. Facebook becomes a precursor for their portfolios, and in some
cases, it is their portfolio. [Reciprocal
Apprenticeships](http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Reciprocal_apprenticeship)
[17] occur in the dynamic of collaboration among peers. Continuity in
time beyond the event horizon is accomplished by these relationships.
Peers nurture one another along the shared learning journey that the
SOLE provides. As facilitator and designer, you are, most of all, in a
reciprocal relationship with the other learners. This is the essence of
being a peer, an interaction that respects what each of us brings to the
experience.
## A Review
> **Sugata Mitra**: It is great to see the thinking that has gone into
> taking the idea of a SOLE forward. To my mind, SOLEs are quite
> experimental at this time and efforts such as these will provide
> invaluable data. I look forward to this. I notice that most of the
> important design features of a SOLE are incorporated into the article.
> I repeat them anyway, just to emphasise: 1. Large, publicly visible
> displays are very important, this is what resulted in the surprising
> results in the hole in the wall experiments and subsequent SOLEs for
> children in England and elsewhere. 2. The absence of unnecessary
> people in the learning space, no matter who they are; parents,
> teachers, principals, curious adults etc. 3. Free, undirected
> activity, conversation and movement. 4. A certain lack of order: I
> must emphasise that ‘Self Organised’, the way I use it does not mean
> ‘organising of the self’. Instead it has a special meaning from the
> subject, Self Organising Systems, a part of Chaos Theory. The SOLE
> should be a space at the ‘edge of chaos’, thereby increasing the
> probability of the appearance of ‘emergent order’.
## References
1. [Case Study:
5PH1NX](http://peeragogy.org/case-study-5ph1nx/ "Peeragogy Case Study: 5PH1NX ")
(Part of the Peeragogy Handbook.)
2. [About Sugata Mitra](http://sugatam.wikispaces.com/)
3. [The SOLE Toolkit](http://www.ted.com/pages/sole_toolkit)
4. [National Center for Universal Design for Learning | Universal
Design for Learning
Guidelines](http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguidelines)
5. [TED Talk | Sugata Mitra: The child-driven
education](http://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_the_child_driven_education.html)
6. [Game-based Learning and Intrinsic Motivation by Kristi
Mead](http://www.academia.edu/1137269/Game-based_Learning_and_Intrinsic_Motivation)
7. [Wikipedia | Hidden
Curriculum](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_curriculum)
8. [Transformed Learning Environment
Analysis](http://www.scribd.com/doc/181089012/Transformed-Learning-Environment-Analysis)
9. Elmasry, Sarah Khalil. 2007. [Integration Patterns of Learning
Technologies](http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-09232007-220306/unrestricted/SElmasryETDbodytext.pdf).
IRB\# 05-295-06.
10. Curious : [In-Forming singular/plural design, The Theories of
Christopher
Alexander](http://nourdiab.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/the-theories-of-christopher-alexander/).
11. [Overwhelmed with Blog Tips? Hack Learning with Just In Time
Information](http://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2013/10/02/just-in-time-information-hacks)
12. [Wikipedia | Dichroic
Filter](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichroic_filter)
13. [CAST | UDL Guidelines](http://www.cast.org/library/UDLguidelines/)
14. [Active Learning Student Generated
Syllabus](http://www.theatreprof.com/2011/active-learning-student-generated-syllabus/)
15. [User Generated Education
Blog](http://usergeneratededucation.wordpress.com/)
16. [Facebook as a Supplemental
LMS](http://community.telecentre.org/profiles/blogs/facebook-as-a-supplemental-lms)
17. [Reciprocal
Apprenticeship](http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Reciprocal_apprenticeship)
# new-beginnings.md
Once he gets to the Whispering Gallery, Jorge realizes that the girl was
right. This *is* the center of the universe. There are murmurs to be
heard there – it seems they come from everywhere. He hears about guilds
and the craftsmen who built the cathedral. He learns about how proud
they were and how they formed communities of practice, educating the
uninitiated, teaching each other to create. He returns to ground level.
The girl is gone, but he feels happy and inspired. He can do much more
then repackage social media streams; there is more going on here than
Twitter as a new broadcast medium. He starts a new journey: finding a
guild, a community of practice, but restyled in a 21st century fashion.
It will be more open, more connected to others then the old guilds. He
will still use Twitter, a social dashboard, and curating tools, but also
he uses wikis, and synchronous communication. And most importantly, he
starts building, together with others -- in particular, together with
the people formerly known as his readers. They will co-create the
analysis, the search for solutions and sense-making, rather than
helplessly listening to “experts”, passively consuming pre-processed
knowledge and information. Instead, they’ll start building their own
destiny, and the newsroom will be part of the platform. [caption id=""
align="aligncenter"
width="520"][](http://peeragogy.org/a-story-of-beginnings/section/)
Section of the Dome at St Paul's Cathedral[/caption]
# organizing.md
This section about organizing Co-Learning rests on the assumption that
learning always happens in a context, whether this context is a
structured "course" or a (potentially) less structured "learning space".
For the moment we consider the following division:
- *Organizing Co-learning Contexts*
- Courses (= "learning linked to a timeline or syllabus")
- Spaces (= "learning not linked to a timeline or syllabus")
This section focuses on existing learning contexts and examines in
detail how they have been "organized" by their (co-)creators. At a
"meta-level" of media, we can talk about this parallel structure:
- *Building Co-learning Platforms*
- Development trajectories (e.g. "design, implement, test,
repeat")
- Platform features (e.g. forums, wikis, ownership models, etc.)
A given learning environment with have both time-like and space-like
features as well as both designed-for and un-planned features. A given
learning platform will encourage certain types of engagement and impose
certain constraints. The question for both "teachers" and "system
designers" -- as well as for learners -- should be: *what features best
support learning?*
The answer will depend on the learning task and available resources.
For example, nearly everyone agrees that the best way to learn a foreign
language is through immersion. But not everyone who wants to learn, say,
French, can afford to drop everything to go live in a French-speaking
country. Thus, the space-like full immersion "treatment" is frequently
sacrificed for course-like treatments (either via books, CDs, videos, or
ongoing participation in semi-immersive discussion groups).
System designers are also faced with scarce resources: programmer time,
software licensing concerns, availability of peer support, and so forth.
While the ideal platform would (magically) come with solutions
pre-built, a more realistic approach recognizes that problem solving
always takes time and energy. The problem solving approach and
associated "learning orientation" will also depend on the task and
resources at hand. The following sections will develop this issue
further through some specific case studies.
## Case study 1 (pilot, completed): "Paragogy" and the After Action
Review.
In our analysis of our experiences as course organizers at P2PU, we (Joe
Corneli and Charlie Danoff) used the US Army's technique of After Action
Review (AAR). To quote from [our
paper](http://paragogy.net/ParagogyPaper2) [2]:
> As the name indicates, the AAR is used to review training exercises.
> It is important to note that while one person typically plays the role
> of evaluator in such a review [...] the review itself happens among
> peers, and examines the operations of the unit as a whole.
>
> The four steps in an AAR are:
> 1. Review what was supposed to happen (training plans).
> 2. Establish what happened.
> 3. Determine what was right or wrong with what happened.
> 4. Determine how the task should be done differently the next time.
>
> The stated purpose of the AAR is to “identify strengths and
> shortcomings in unit planning, preparation, and execution, and guide
> leaders to accept responsibility for shortcomings and produce a fix.”
We combined the AAR with several principles (see Discussion section
below), which we felt described effective peer learning, and went
through steps 1-4 for each principle to look at how well it was
implemented at P2PU. This process helped generate a range of advice that
could be applied at P2PU or similar institutions. By presenteding our
paper at the [Open Knowledge Conference
(OKCon)](http://okfn.org/okcon/), we were able to meet P2PU's executive
director, Philipp Schmidt, as well as other highly-involved P2PU
participants; our feedback may have contributed to shaping the
development trajectory for P2PU.
In addition, we developed a strong prototype for constructive engagement
with peer learning that we and others could deploy again. In other
words, variants on the AAR and the paragogical principles could be
incorporated into future learning contexts as platform features [3] or
re-used in a design/administration/moderation approach [4]. For example,
we also used the AAR to help structure our writing and subsequent work
on [paragogy.net](http://paragogy.net).
## Case Study 2 (in progress): "Peeragogy".
Our particular focus in the interviews was on drawing out and
emphasizing the relational dimension of students, learning experiences
within their environment and, consequently, on inferring from their
accounts a sense of how they perceived and indeed constituted their
environment. We asked them who they learned with and from and how. A
further question specifically focused on whom they regarded as their
peers and how they understood their peers as a source and a site for
learning." [1]
In this section, we will interview and/or survey members of the
Peeragogy community with questions similar to those used by Boud and Lee
[1] and then identify strengths and shortcomings as we did with the AAR
above. These questions are derived from the AAR.
## Questions
These were discussed, refined, and answered on an etherpad: revisions to
the original set of questions are marked in italics.
1. Who have you learned with or from in the Peeragogy project? *What
are you doing to contribute to your peers' learning?*
2. How have you been learning during the project?
3. Who are your peers in this community, and why?
4. What were your expectations of participation in this project? *And,
specifically, what did you (or do you) hope to learn through
participation in this project?*
5. What actually happened during your participation in this project (so
far)? *Have you been making progress on your learning goals (if any;
see previous question) -- or learned anything unexpected, but
interesting?*
6. What is right or wrong with what happened (Alternatively: how would
you assess the project to date?)
7. How might the task be done differently next time? (What's "missing"
here that would create a "next time"*, "sequel", or
"continuation"?*)
8. *How would you like to use the Peeragogy handbook?*
9. *Finally, how might we change the questions, above, if we wanted to
apply them in your peeragogical context?*
### **Reflections on participants' answers**
The questions were intended to help participants reflect on, and change,
their practice (i.e. their style of participation). There is a tension,
however, between changing midstream and learning what we might do
differently next time. There is a related tension between initial
structure and figuring things out as we go. Arguably, if we knew, 100%,
how to do peeragogy, then we would not learn very much in writing this
handbook. Difficulties and tensions would be resolved "in advance" (see
earlier comments about "magical" technologies for peer production).
And yet, despite our considerable collected expertise on collaboration,
learning, and teaching, there have been a variety of tensions here!
Perhaps we should judge our "success" partly on how well we deal with
those. Some of the tensions highlighted in the answers are as follows:
1. *Slow formation of "peer" relationships.* There is a certain irony
here: we are studying "peeragogy" and yet many respondents did not
feel they were really getting to know one another "as peers", at
least not yet. Those who did have a "team" or who knew one another
from previous experiences, felt more peer-like in those
relationships. Several remarked that they learned less from other
individual participants and more from "the collective" or "from
everyone". At the same time, some respondents had ambiguous feelings
about naming individuals in the first question: "I felt like I was
going to leave people out and that that means they would get a bad
grade - ha!" One criterion for being a peer was to have built
something together, so by this criterion, it stands to reason that
we would only slowly become peers through this project.
2. *"Co-learning", "co-teaching", "co-producing"?* One respondent
wrote: "I am learning about peeragogy, but I think I'm failing [to
be] a good peeragog. I remember that Howard [once] told us that the
most important thing is that you should be responsible not only for
your own learning but for your peers' learning. [...] So the
question is, are we learning from others by ourselves or are we
[...] helping others to learn?" Another wrote: "To my surprise I
realized I could contribute organizationally with reviews, etc. And
that I could provide some content around PLNs and group process.
Trying to be a catalyst to a sense of forward movement and esprit de
corps."
3. *Weak structure at the outset, versus a more "flexible" approach.*
One respondent wrote: "I definitely think I do better when presented
with a framework or scaffold to use for participation or content
development. [...] (But perhaps it is just that I'm used to the old
way of doing things)." Yet, the same person wrote: "I am interested
in [the] applicability [of pæragogy] to new models for
entrepreneurship enabling less structured aggregation of
participants in new undertakings, freed of the requirement or need
for an entrepreneurial visionary/source/point person/proprietor."
There is a sense that some confusion, particularly at the beginning,
may be typical for peeragogy. With hindsight, one proposed
"solution" would be to "have had a small group of people as a cadre
that had met and brainstormed before the first live session [...]
tasked [with] roles [and] on the same page".
4. *Technological concerns.* There were quite a variety, perhaps mainly
to do with the question: how might a (different) platform handle the
tension between "conversations" and "content production"? For
example, will Wordpress help us "bring in" new contributors, or
would it be better to use an open wiki? Another respondent noted the
utility for many readers of a take-away PDF version. The site
(peeragogy.org) should be "[a] place for people to share, comment,
mentor and co-learn together in an ongoing fashion."
5. *Sample size.* Note that answers are still trickling in. How should
we interpret the response rate? Perhaps what matters is that we are
getting "enough" responses to make an analysis. One respondent
proposed asking questions in a more ongoing fashion, e.g., asking
people who are leaving: "What made you want to quit the project?"
## Discussion
> **Lisewski and Joyce**: In recent years, the tools, knowledge base and
> discourse of the learning technology profession has been bolstered by
> the appearance of conceptual paradigms such as the 'five stage
> e-moderating model' and the new mantra of 'communities of practice'.
> This paper will argue that, although these frameworks are useful in
> informing and guiding learning technology practice, there are inherent
> dangers in them becoming too dominant a discourse.
The following table helps to emphasize something we saw in the pattern
catalog: in practice, what we really have is a patchwork collection of
tricks or heuristics. The paragogy principles are themselves a
non-linear interface that we can plug into and adapt where appropriate.
Instead of a grand narrative, we see a growing collection of case
studies and descriptive patterns. As we share our experiences and make
needed adaptations, our techniques for doing peer learning and peer
production become more robust. Based on the experiences described above,
here are a few things people may want to try out in future projects:
- "Icebreaking" techniques or a "buddy system"; continual refactoring
into teams.
- Maintain a process diagram that can be used to "triage" new ideas
and effort.
- Prefer the "good" to the "best", but make improvements at the
platform level as needed.
- Gathering some information from everyone who joins, and, if
possible, everyone who leaves.
**Paragogical Principles...**
**Reflections on practice and experience suggest...**
1. *Changing context as a decentered center.* We interact by changing
the space.
1. **Develop empirical studies and a critical apparatus.***It seems we
begin with *w*eak ties, and then experience a slow formation of "peer"
relationships, as we form and re-form our social context, and come to
better understand our goals.*
2. *Meta-learning as a font of knowledge.* We interact by changing what
we know about ourselves.
2. **Find companions for the journey**. *We learn a lot about ourselves
by interacting with others. But participants struggle to find the right
way to engage:* *"co-learning", "co-teaching", or "co-producing"?
Moreover, "People come--they stay for a while, they flourish, they
build--and they go." *
3. *Peers provide feedback that wouldn’t be there otherwise.* We
interact by changing our perspective on things.
3. **Work with real users**. *We begin with a weak structure at the
outset but this may afford a more "flexible" approach as time goes on
(see also this [handbook
section](http://peeragogy.org/adding-structure-with-activities/ "Adding structure with activities")
which offers advice on designing activities that help create a "flexible
structure").*
4. *Learning is distributed and nonlinear.* We interact by changing the
way things connect.
4. **Study and build nonlinear interfaces**. *There are a number of
technological concerns, which in a large part have to do with tensions
between "content production" and "conversation", and to a lesser extent
critique the platforms we're using. *
5. *Realize the dream if you can, then wake up!* We interact by changing
our objectives.
5. **Limit philosophizing**. E*ven with a small group, we can extract
meaningful ideas about peer learning and form a strong collective
effort, which moves things forward for those involved: this means work.
We would not get the same results through "pure contemplation".*
##
## References
1. Boud, D. and Lee, A. (2005). [‘Peer learning’ as pedagogic discourse
for research
education](http://manainkblog.typepad.com/faultlines/files/BoudLee2005.pdf).
*Studies in Higher Education*, 30(5):501–516.
2. Joseph Corneli and Charles Jeffrey Danoff,
[Paragogy](http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-739/paper_5.pdf), in Sebastian
Hellmann, Philipp Frischmuth, Sören Auer, and Daniel Dietrich
(eds.), *Proceedings of the 6th Open Knowledge Conference, Berlin,
Germany, June 30 & July 1, 2011*,
3. Joseph Corneli and Alexander Mikroyannidis (2011). [Personalised and
Peer-Supported Learning: The Peer-to-Peer Learning Environment
(P2PLE)](http://greav.ub.edu/der/index.php/der/article/view/188/330),
*Digital Education Review*, 20.
4. Joseph Corneli, [Paragogical
Praxis](http://paragogy.net/ParagogicalPraxisPaper), *E-Learning and
Digital Media* (ISSN 2042-7530), Volume 9, Number 3, 2012
5. Lisewski, B., and P. Joyce (2003). Examining the Five Stage
e-Moderating Model: Designed and Emergent Practice in the Learning
Technology Profession, *Association for Learning Technology
Journal*, 11, 55-66.
# structure.md
In the introduction to “Organizing a Learning Context”, we remarked that
a “learning space” is *only potentially* less structured than a
"course". For example, a library tends to be highly structured, with
quiet rooms for reading, protocols for checking out books, a cataloging
and shelving system that allows people to find what they are looking
for, as well as rules that deter vandalism and theft. (Digital libraries
don't need to play by all the same rules, but are still structured.)
But more structure does not always lead to better learning. In a 2010
Forbes article titled, "The Classroom in 2020," George Kembel describes
a future in which "Tidy lectures will be supplanted by messy real-world
challenges." The Stanford School of Design, (or "d.school" -- which
Kemble co-founded and currently directs) is already well-known for its
open collaborative spaces, abundant supply of post-it notes and markers,
and improvisational brainstorm activities -- almost the opposite of
traditional lecture-based learning.
One "unexpected benefit" of dealing with real-world challenges is that
we can change our approach as we go. This is how it works in peer
learning: peers can decide on different structures not just once (say,
at the beginning of a course), but throughout the duration of their time
together. This way, they are never "stuck" with existing structures,
whether they be messy or clean. At least... that's the ideal.
In practice, "bottlenecks" frequently arise. For example, in a digital
library context, there may be bottlenecks having to do with software
development, organizational resources, community good will, or access to
funding -- and probably all of the above. In a didactic context, it may
be as simple as one person knowing something that others do not.
While we can't eliminate scarcity in one stroke, we can design
activities for peer learning that are "scarcity aware" and that help us
move in the direction of adaptive learning structures.
## Planning Peer Learning Activities
We begin with two simple questions:
- How do we select an appropriate learning activity?
- How do we go about creating a learning activity if we don't find an
existing one?
"Planning a learning activity" should mean planning an *effective*
learning activity, and in particular that means something that people
can and will engage with. In short, an appropriate learning activity may
be one that you already do! At the very least, current activities can
provide a "seed" for even more effective ones.
But when entering unfamiliar territory, it can be difficult to know
where to begin. And remember the bottlenecks mentioned above? When you
run into difficulty, ask yourself: [why is this
hard?](http://peeragogy.org/patterns-and-heuristics/) You might try
adapting [Zed Shaw's task-management
trick](http://learnpythonthehardway.org/book/intro.html#comment-409972596),
and make a list of limiting factors, obstacles, etc., then cross off
those which you can find a strategy to deal with (add an annotation as
to why). For example, you might decide to overcome your lack of
knowledge in some area by hiring a tutor or expert consultant, or by
putting in the hours learning things the hard way (Zed would
particularly approve of this choice). If you can't find a strategy to
deal with some issue, presumably you can table it, at least for a while.
Strategic thinking like this works well for one person. What about when
you're planning activities for someone else? Here you have to be
careful: remember, this is peer learning, not traditional "teaching" or
"curriculum design". The first rule of thumb for *peer learning* is:
don't plan activities for others unless you plan to to take part as a
fully engaged participant. Otherwise, in you might be more interested in
the literature on *collaborative learning*, which has often been
deployed to good effect within a standard pedagogical context (see e.g.
Bruffee [1]). In a peer learning setting, everyone will have something
to say about "what do you need to do" and "why is it hard," and everyone
is likely to be interested in everyone else's answer as well as their
own.
For example, in a mathematics learning context, you would be likely to
find people...
- solving textbook-style problems;
- finding and sharing new research problems;
- asking questions when something seems too difficult;
- fixing expository material to respond to critique;
- offering critique and review of proposed solutions;
- offering constructive feedback to questions (e.g. hints);
- organizing material into structured collections;
- working on applications to real-world problems;
- doing "meta" research activities that analyse "what works" for any
and all of the above.
Each one of those activities may be "hard" for one reason or another. As
a system the different activities tend to depend on one another. If you
have people working in a "student role" but no one who can take on a "TA
role", things will be more difficult for the students. As a
(co-)organizer, part of *your* job is to try to make sure all of the
relevant roles are covered by someone (who may in the end wear many
hats). You can further decompose each role into specific concrete
activities. They might be accompanied by instructions that say: “*How to
write a good critique*” or “*How to write a proof*”. They might come in
the form of accessible exercises (where "accessible" depends on the
person). Depending on the features of the learning context, you may be
able to support the written instructions or exercises with
live/in-person feedback (e.g. meta-critique to coach and guide novice
critics, a demonstration, etc.).
## One scenario: building activities for the Peeragogy Handbook
Adding a bunch of activities to the handbook won't solve all of our
usability issues, but more activities would help. We can think about
each article or section from this perspective:
1. When looking at this piece of text, what type of knowledge are we
(and the reader) trying to gain? Technical skills, or abstract
skills? What's the point?
2. What's difficult here? What might be difficult for someone else?
3. What learning activity recipes or models might be appropriate? (See
e.g. [2], [3].)
4. What customizations do we need for this particular application?
*** *As a quick example: designing a learning activity for the current
page **
1. *We want to be able to come up with effective learning activities,
for instance, to accompany a "how to" article for peer learners*.
These activities will extend from from the written word to the world
of action.
2. *It might be difficult for some of us to "unplug" from all the
reading and writing that we're habituated to doing.* But peer
learning isn't just about the exchange of text: there are lots and
lots of ways to learn.
3. *Like Tom in “[A pattern
story](http://peeragogy.org/a-pattern-story/ "A pattern story")”, it
could be useful to apply an existing set of skills to a new
problem.*
4. *The proposed handbook activity is to simply step away from the
handbook for a while.* Look for some examples of peer learning in
everyday life. When you've gained an insight about peer from your
own experience, come back and create a related activity to accompany
another handbook page!
## References
1. Bruffee, Kenneth A. (1984). "Collaborative learning and the
conversation of mankind." *College English* 46.7, 635-652
2. [KS ToolKit](http://www.kstoolkit.org/KS+Methods)
3. [Designing Effective and Innovative
Sources](http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/coursedesign/tutorial/strategies.html)
(particularly the section on "Teaching Strategies for Actively
Engaging Students in the Classroom")
# student_syllabus.md
*Author:* [Suz Burroughs](http://peeragogy.org/resources/meet-the-team/)
In either formal learning, informal learning or models which transition
between the two, there are many opportunities for learners to co-create
the syllabus and/or outline their own course of action. The *sage on the
stage* of formal instruction must become at the most *a guide on the
side* who acts as a coach appearing only when needed rather than as a
lecturer who determines the content that the learners need to master. In
the following inspirational but certainly not prescriptive examples, we
will focus on co-learning methods drawn from a Social Constructivist
perspective, which fits nicely here.
We offer a few examples below to show a range of learner centered
approaches. They all are based on co-learners hosting each other for one
of a number of digestible topics in the larger subject area or domain
that the group formed in order to explore. This can take place across a
number of media and timelines.
The following methods will result in each co-learner gaining deep
knowledge in a specific topic and moderate knowledge across several
topics. The unique joy of this approach is that no two cohorts will ever
be the same. The content will always be fresh, relevant, and changing. A
group can even reconvene with slightly or dramatically different topics
over and over using the same underlying process.
The appropriateness of the learner-created syllabus technique depends on
two factors: 1) the involvement of experts in the group and 2) the level
of proficiency of the group. In general, novices who may or may not have
a deep interest in the subject matter benefit from more structure and
experts who point to key concepts and texts. An example of this is the
university survey course for first or second year students who, we
assume, need more guidance as they enter the subject matter. Graduate
seminars are generally much more fluid, open dialogues between motivated
experts require little structure or guidance.
We also need effective methods for groups which contain novices,
experts, and everyone in between. In groups with a wide range of
expertise, it is important that each co-learner chooses to focus their
deep inquiry on a topic that they are less familiar with. This will
*even out* the expertise level across the cohort as well as ensure that
a co-learner is neither bored nor dominating the dialogue.
## 3 example designs to structure the learning
### Weekly topics structure
One way to structure the course is to have each co-learner host a topic
each week. Perhaps multiple students host their topics in the same week.
This progression provides a rotation of presentations and activities to
support the entire group in engaging with the topics and challenges to
the thinking of the presenters in a constructive and respectful manner.
> *Pro:* co-learners have discrete timelines and manageable chunks of
> responsibility.
>
> *Con:* the format may become disjointed, and the depth of inquiry will
> likely be somewhat shallow.
### Milestone based structure
In this structure, each co-learner host their topics in parallel with
similar activities and milestones that the whole group moves through
together. Milestones can be set for a certain date, or the group can
*unlock* their next milestone whenever all participants have completed
the previous milestone. This second milestone timeline can be great for
informal groups where participation levels may vary from week to week
due to external factors, and the sense of responsibility and game-like
levels can be motivating for many co-learners.
Each co-learner may start with a post of less than 500 words introducing
the topic on a superficial level. When everyone has done this, the group
might move on to posting questions to the post authors. Then, there may
be a summary post of the activity so far with critical recommendations
or insights.
> *Pro:* co- learners have more time to digest a topic, formulate a
> complex schema, and generate deeper questions.
>
> *Con:* it will be a few weeks before the topic level schema can form
> into a broader understanding of the subject matter or domain (seeing
> the big picture takes longer).
### Relay learning structure.
This is similar to the milestone structure. However, co-learners rotate
topics. If one learner posts an introductory write-up on a topic the
first cycle, they may be researching questions on another topic in the
next cycle, posting a summary in a third, and then posting a summary on
their original topic in the fourth.
> *Pro:* co-learners can experience responsibility for several topics.
>
> *Con:* co-learners may receive a topic that is poorly researched or
> otherwise neglected.
## Content
### A vast number of topics
Within a subject of mutual interest to a group, there are a considerable
number of topics or questions. What is important is that each co-learner
can take responsibility for a reasonably narrow area given the duration
of the course or the timeline of the group. Areas that are too broad
will result in a very superficial understanding, and areas that are too
narrow will result in a dull experience. For example, in marine biology,
topics such as “the inter-tidal zone” may be too broad for a course
cycle of a few weeks. Narrowing to one species may be too specific for a
course over a few months.
### Learner generated topics
Most cohorts will have some knowledge of the shared area of interest or
an adjacent area. It is a good idea to respect the knowledge and
experience that each member of the group brings to the table. A
facilitator or coordinator may generate a list of potential topic areas,
setting an example of the scale of a topic. We suggest that the
participants in the group are also polled for additions to the list. In
large courses, sending out a Google Form via email can be an effective
way to get a quick list with a high response rate.
### Expert informed topics
If there is no expert facilitator in the group, we suggest that the
cohort begin their journey with a few interviews of experts to uncover
what the main buzz words and areas of focus might be. One way to locate
this type of expert help is through contacting authors in the subject
matter on social networks, reviewing their posts for relevance, and
reaching out with the request.
We recommend two people interview the expert over video chat, for
example in a Hangout. One person conducts the interview, and one person
takes notes and watches the time. We strongly suggest that the interview
be outlined ahead of time:
> *Warm up*: Who are you, what are your goals, and why do you think this
> interview will help?
>
> *Foundational questions*: Ask a few questions that might elicit short
> answers to build rapport and get your interviewee talking.
>
> *Inquiry*: What people say and what they do can often be very
> different. Ask about topics required for mastery of the subject matter
> (e.g. What are the areas someone would need to know about to be
> considered proficient in this subject?). Also, ask [questions that
> require
> storytelling](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Incident_Technique).
> Avoid [superlative](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superlative) or
> [close-ended
> questions](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-ended_question).
>
> *Wrap up*: Thank the interviewee for his or her time, and be sure to
> follow up by sharing both what you learned and what you accomplished
> because he or she helped you.
## Shared goals and group norms
### Choosing useful outputs
Getting together for the sake of sharing what you know in an informal
way can be fairly straightforward and somewhat useful. Most groups find
that a common purpose and output that are explicitly defined and
documented help to engage, motivate, and drive the group. For the
examples above, the group may decide to create a blog with posts on the
various topics or create a wiki where they can share their insights.
Other outputs can include community service projects, business
proposals, recommendations to senior management or administration, new
products, and more. The key is to go beyond sharing for sharing sake and
move toward an output that will be of use beyond the co-learning group.
This activity is best described in
[Connectivist](http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm)
theory as the special case of networked learning where we find evidence
of learning in collective action and/or behavioral change in groups
rather than a psychological or neurological process in individuals.
### Group cohesion (a.k.a. the rules of the road)
One challenge of this kind of collaboration is that each group will need
to decide on norms, acceptable practices and behaviors. Culturally
diverse groups in particular may run into communication or other issues
unless there is a way to create shared expectations and communicate
preferences.
One way to do this is with a team charter. This is a living document
where the initial rules of engagement can live for reference. The group
may add or edit this document over time based on experience, and that is
a welcome thing! This documentation is a huge asset for new members
joining the group who want to contribute quickly and effectively. Any
co-editing word processing program will work, but we strongly recommend
something that can be edited simultaneously and that lives in the cloud.
(Google Docs is convenient because you can also embed your Charter into
another site.)
Try starting with the following three sections, and allow some time for
the group to co-edit and negotiate the document between icebreakers and
kicking off the official learning process.
> *Mission:* Why are you forming the group? What do you want to
> accomplish together?
>
> *Norms:* Use
> [netiquette](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette#Netiquette)? No
> [flaming](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_(Internet))? Post your
> vacation days to a [shared
> calendar](http://support.google.com/calendar/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=36598)?
> Cultural norms?
>
> *Members:* It is useful to include a photo and a link to a public
> profile such as Twitter, Google+ or Facebook.
## Assessments and feedback loops
### Co-authored assessment rubrics
Tests. Quizzes. Exams. How can the co-learning group assess their
performance?
These types of courses benefit from an approach similar to coaching. Set
goals as individuals and a group in the beginning, define what success
looks like, outline steps that are needed to achieve the goal, check in
on the goal progress periodically, and assess the results at the end of
the course against the goal criteria. Goals may include domain
expertise, a business outcome, a paper demonstrating mastery, a
co-created resource, or even the quality of collaboration and adherence
to shared group norms.
### Learner created assessments
Another effective way to create an assessment is to decide on an
individual or group output and create a peer assessment rubric based on
the goals of the individual or group.
One way to create a rubric is to spend some time defining the qualities
you want your output to have based on positive examples. Perhaps a group
wants to create a blog. Each person on the team may identify the
qualities of a great blog post based on examples that they admire. They
can use that example to create a criteria for assessment of co-learner
authored blog posts. We recommend that the criteria have a 0 to 5 point
scale with 0 being non-existent and 5 being superb. Writing a few
indicators in the 1, 3, and 5 columns helps to calibrate reviewers.
Create a [shared
document](https://support.google.com/drive/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=143213&topic=21010&ctx=topic),
perhaps starting with a list of criteria. Collapse similar criteria into
one item, and create the indicators or definitions of 1, 3, and 5 point
performance. Agree on the rubric, and decide on how the co-learners will
be assigned assessment duties. WIll everyone review at least two others?
Will each co-learner product need at least 3 reviewers before it goes
live? Will you use a
[spreadsheet](https://support.google.com/drive/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=141195&topic=20329&ctx=topic)
or a
[form](http://support.google.com/drive/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=87809)
to collect the assessments?
In a university setting, the instructor of record may wish to approve a
peer assessment rubric, and it is sometimes a good idea to have a few
outside experts give feedback on criteria that the group may have
missed.
### Outside assessments
It is possible that an instructor of record or similar authority will
create the assessment for performance. In these cases, it is crucial
that the co-learners have access to the grading rubric ahead of time so
that they can ensure their activities and timeline will meet any
requirements. In this case, it may be possible to require that the
co-learners self-organize entirely, or there may be intermediary
assignments such as the charter, project plan or literary review.
## Cyclical use of these models
### So much more to learn
As mentioned above, the joy of this type of learning is that no two
groups will ever do it the same. Their process, goals, and outcomes can
all be unique. As designers and facilitators of this type of learning
environment, we can say it is a wild ride! Each class is exciting,
refreshing, and on trend. The co-learners become our teachers.
If a group generates more topics than it is possible to cover at one
time given the number of group members or if a group has plans to
continue indefinitely, it is always possible to set up a system where
potential topics are collected at all times. These unexplored topics can
be harvested for use in another learning cycle, continuing until the
group achieves comprehensive mastery.
## Risks
This format is not without its own unique pitfalls: some challenges are
learner disorientation or frustration in a new learning structure with
ambiguous expectations and uneven participation. Some groups simply
never gel, and we do not know why they have failed to achieve the
cohesion required to move forward. Other groups are the exact opposite.
Here are a few risks to consider if you would like to try the methods
suggested here and how to mitigate them.
> *Uneven expertise:* Ask co-learners to be responsible for topics that
> are new to them.
>
> *Uneven participation and cohesion:* Ask co-learners what they want to
> do to motivate the group rather than imposing your own ideas.
>
> *Experts/facilitators that kill the conversation:* In the charter or
> other documentation, explicitly state that the purpose of the
> discussion is to further the conversation, and encourage experts to
> allow others to explore their own thinking by asking probing (not
> leading) questions.
>
> *Ambiguous goals:* Encourage the group to document their mission and
> what they will do as a team. This can change over time, but it is best
> to start out with a clear purpose.
### Conclusion
Make mistakes. Correct course. Invite new perspectives. Create a
structure that everyone can work with. Change it when it breaks. Most of
all, have fun!
# connectivism.md
*Author*: Roland Legrand
Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are online learning events that can
take place synchronously and asynchronously for months. Participants
assemble to hear, see, and participate in backchannel communication
during live lectures. They read the same texts at the same time,
according to a calendar. Learning takes place through self-organized
networks of participants, and is almost completely decentralized:
individuals and groups create blogs or wikis around their own
interpretations of the texts and lectures, and comment on each other's
work; each individual and group publicises their RSS feed, which are
automatically aggregated by a special (freely available) tool,
gRSShopper. Every day, an email goes out to all participants,
aggregating activity streams from all the blogs and wikis that engage
that week's material. MOOCs are a practical application of a learning
theory known as "connectivism" that situates learning in the networks of
connections made between individuals and between texts.
Not all MOOCs are Connectivist MOOCs (or *cMOOCs*). Platforms such as
[Coursera](https://www.coursera.org/), [edX](https://www.edx.org/) and
[Udacity](http://www.udacity.com/) offering MOOCs which follow a more
traditional, centralized approach (these are sometimes called *xMOOCs*).
In this type of MOOC, a professor is taking the lead and the
learning-experience is organized top-down. However, some xMOOCs seem to
adopt a more blended approach. For instance, the course *[E-learning and
Digital Cultures](https://www.coursera.org/course/edc)* makes use of
online spaces beyond the Coursera environment, and the course organizers
want some aspects of participation in this course to involve the wider
social web.
In this chapter we'll focus on cMOOCs. One might wonder why a course
would want to be 'massive' and what '*massive*' means. cMOOC-pioneer
Stephen Downes explains that his focus is on the development of a
*network structure*, as opposed to a *group structure*, to manage the
course. In a network structure there isn't any central focus, for
example, a central discussion. That's also the reason why he considers
the figure of 150 active participants -- *Dunbar's Number* -- to be the
lower cut-off in order to talk about 'massive':
> **Stephen Downes**: Why Dunbar's number? The reason is that it
> represents the maximum (theoretical) number of people a person can
> reasonably interact with. How many blogs can a person read, follow and
> respond to? Maybe around 150, if Dunbar is correct. Which means that
> if we have 170 blogs, then the blogs don't constitute a 'core' -
> people begin to be selective about which blogs they're reading, and
> different (and interacting) subcommunities can form.
## A learning theory for the digital age
Traditionally, scholars distinguish between three main [categories of
learning
theories](http://ryan2point0.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/taxonomy-of-learning-theories/):
*behaviorism*, *cognitivism* and *constructivism*. Stephen Downes and
others would add a fourth one:
[connectivism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectivism), but this is
[disputed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Connectivism). The central
application of connectivism to date is as a theory of what happens in
Massive Open Online Courses.
The connectivist theory describes learning as a process of creating
connections and developing networks. It is based on the premise that
knowledge exists out in the world, rather than inside an individual's
mind. Connectivism sees the network as a central metaphor for learning,
with a node in the network being a concept (data, feelings, images,
etc.) that can be meaningfully related to other nodes. Not all
connections are of equal strength in this metaphor; in fact, many
connections may be quite weak.
On a practical level, this approach recommends that learning should
focus on where to find information (streams), and how to evaluate and
mash up those streams, rather than trying to enter lots of (perishable)
information into one's skull. Knowing the pipes is more important than
knowing what exactly each pipe contains at a given moment. This is the
theory. The practice takes place in Connectivist MOOCs (cMOOCs), like
[Change11](http://change.mooc.ca/about.htm "Downes/Siemens MOOC"). Here,
people are free to participate at will. Each week a subject is discussed
during synchronous sessions, which are recorded and uploaded for
reference on the Change11 website. The site also includes an archive of
daily newsletters and RSS-feeds of blog posts and tweets from
participants.
cMOOCs tend to be learner-centered. People are encouraged to pursue
their own interests and link up with others who might help them. But the
distributed and free nature of the projects also leads to complaints;
participants often find it confusing when they attempt to follow up on
all the discussions (the facilitators say one should not try to follow
up on *all* the content).
> **Stephen Downes**: This implies a pedagogy that (a) seeks to describe
> 'successful' networks (as identified by their properties, which I have
> characterized as diversity, autonomy, openness, and connectivity); and
> (b) seeks to describe the practices that lead to such networks, both
> in the individual and in society (which I have characterized as
> modeling and demonstration (on the part of a teacher) and practice and
> reflection (on the part of a learner).
## Anatomy of a cMOOC
One example of a MOOC that claims to embody the connectivist theory is
[change.mooc.ca](http://change.mooc.ca/index.html). The “[how it
works](http://change.mooc.ca/how.htm)” section of the site explains what
connectivism means in practice. The MOOC organizers developed a number
of ways to combine the distributed nature of the discussions with the
need for a constantly updated overview and for a federated structure.
So, if your team wants to organize an open online course, these are five
points to take into consideration:
There is no body of content the participants have to memorize, but the
learning results from activities they undertake. The activities are
different for each person. A course schedule with suggested reading,
assignments for synchronous or asynchronous sessions is provided (e.g.
using Google Docs spreadsheets internally, Google Calendar externally;
one could also use a wiki), but participants are free to pick and choose
what they work on. Normally there is a topic, activities, reading
resources and often a guest speaker for each week. One should even
reflect upon the question whether a start- and end date are actually
needed. It is crucial to explain the particular philosophy of this kind
of MOOC, and this right from the outset, because chances are learners
will come with expectations informed by their more traditional learning
experiences.
1. It is important to discuss the "internal" aspects, such as
self-motivation: what do the participants want to achieve, what is
their larger goal? And what are their intentions when they select
certain activities (rather than other possibilities)? Everyone has
her own intended outcome. Suggest that participants meditate on all
this and jot down their objectives. And how can they avoid becoming
stressed out and getting depressed because they feel they cannot
"keep up with all this?" The facilitators should have a good look at
these motivations, even if it's impossible to assist every
participant individually (for large-scale MOOCs).
2. Ideally, participants should prepare for this course by acquiring
the necessary digital skills. Which skills are "necessary" can be
decided by the group itself in advance. It's all about selecting,
choosing, remixing - also called "curating". There are lots of tools
which you can use for this: blogs, social bookmarks, wikis,
mindmaps, forums, social dashboards, networks such as Twitter with
their possibilities such as hashtags and lists. Maybe these tools
are self-evident for some, but not necessarily for all the
participants.
3. The course is not located in one place but is distributed across the
web: on various blogs and blogging platforms, on various groups and
online networks, on photo- and video-sharing platforms, on mindmaps
and other visualization platforms, on various tools for synchronous
sessions. This wide variety is in itself an important learning
element.
4. There are weekly synchronous sessions (using Blackboard collaborate,
or similar group chatting tool). During these sessions, experts and
participants give presentations and enter into discussions. Groups
of participants also have synchronous meetings at other venues (such
as Second Life). Try to plan this well in advance!
5. Many participants highly appreciate efforts to give an overview of
the proceedings. Specifically, the [Daily
Newsletter](http://change.mooc.ca/newsletter.htm) is a kind of hub,
a community newspaper. In that Daily there is also a list of the
blog posts mentioning the course-specific tag (e.g. "Change11"),
also the tweets with hashtag \#change11 are listed in the Daily. Of
course, the MOOC has a [site](http://change.mooc.ca/index.html)
where sessions, newsletters and other resources are archived and
discussion threads can be read.
From the very beginning of the course, it's necessary to explain the
importance of tagging the various contributions, to suggest a hashtag.
For harvesting all this distributed content, Stephen Downes advocates
the use of [gRSShopper](http://grsshopper.downes.ca/index.html), which
is a personal web environment that combines resource aggregation, a
personal dataspace, and personal publishing (Downes developed it and
would like to build a hosted version - eventually financed via
Kickstarter). The gRSShopper can be found on a registration page, which
is useful primarily for sending the newsletter. It allows you to
organize your online content any way you want, to import content - your
own or others' - from remote sites, to remix and repurpose it, and to
distribute it as RSS, web pages, JSON data, or RSS feeds.
> **Stephen Downes**: For example, the gRSShopper harvester will harvest
> a link from a given feed. A person, if he or she has admin privileges,
> can transform this link into a post, adding his or her own comments.
> The post will contain information about the original link's author and
> journal. Content in gRSShopper is created and manipulated through the
> use of system code that allows administrators to harvest, map, and
> display data, as well as to link to and create their own content.
> gRSShopper is also intended to act as a fully-fledged publishing tool.
Alternatives for registrations: Google Groups for instance. But specific
rules about privacy should be dealt with: what will be the status of the
contributions? In this MOOC the status is public and open by default,
for Downes this is an important element of the course.
## Technologies
Some MOOCs use Moodle, but Downes dislikes the centralization aspect and
it's not as open as it could be, saying "people feel better writing in
their own space." Other possibilities: Google Groups, Wordpress, Diigo,
Twitter, Facebook page, Second Life; but each course uses different
mixtures of the many tools out there. People choose their environment -
whether it is WoW or Minecraft. Students use Blogger, WordPress, Tumblr,
Posterous as blogging tools.
## RSS harvesting is a key element
Give participants a means to contribute their blogfeed. In “[Add a New
Feed](http://change.mooc.ca/new_feed.htm),” Downes explains how to get
this structure and additional explanations (via videos) in order to
contribute their blog feed. The administrator in this case uses
gRSShopper to process the content and put it in a database, process it
and send it to other people. Alternatively one can use Google Reader
(the list of feeds is available as an OPML file - which can be imported
to other platforms). There is also a plug-in for Wordpress that lets you
use a Google Doc spreadsheet for the feeds, then Wordpress for the
aggregation). Many other content management systems have RSS harvesting
features.
Each individual could run her own aggregator, but Downes offers it as a
service. But aggregators are needed, whether individual, centralized or
both.
### Specialized harvesting
Using Twitter, Diigo, Delicious, Google Groups, If This Then That
([IFTTT](http://ifttt.com "Feeds of interest")) and
[Feed43](http://feed43.com) (take ordinary web page and turn it into an
RSS feed).
### Synchronous environments
Synchronous platforms include Blackboard Collaborate (used now for
Change11); Adobe Connect; Big Blue Button; WizIQ; Fuze; WebX;
webcasting; web radio; videoconferencing with Skype or Google Hangout in
conjunction with Livestream or ustream.tv. Or take the Skype/Hangout
audiostream and broadcast is as webradio. Set up and test ahead of time,
but don't hesitate to experiment. Note also, there is a more extensive
discussion of [real-time
tools](http://peeragogy.org/real-time-meetings/ "Real-time meetings") in
another section of the handbook.
### Newsletter or Feeds
Feeds are very important (see earlier remarks about the Daily
newsletter). You can use Twitter or a Facebook page, Downes uses email,
also creates an RSS version through gRSShopper and sends it through
Ifttt.com back to Facebook and Twitter. For the rest of us there is
Wordpress, which you can use to [create an email news
letter](http://www.wpbeginner.com/wp-tutorials/create-a-free-email-newsletter-service-using-wordpress/%20).
Downs also suggests this handy guide on [how to design and build an
email newsletter without loosing your
mind](http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/01/19/design-and-build-an-email-newsletter-without-losing-your-mind/)!
Consider using a content management system and databases to put out
specialized pages and the newsletter in an elegant way, but it requires
a learning curve. Otherwise, use blogs / wikis.
### the Use of Comments
Participants are strongly encouraged to comment on each others' blogs
and to launch discussion threads. By doing so they practice a
fundamental social media skill - developing networks by commenting on
various places and engaging in conversations. It is important to have
activities and get people to be involved rather than sit back. For an
in-depth presentation, have a look at [Facilitating a Massive Open
Online Course](http://www.downes.ca/presentation/290) by Stephen Downes,
in which he focuses on research and survey issues, preparing events, and
other essentials.
## Resources
- Change MOOC: [How this Course Works](http://change.mooc.ca/how.htm)
- [What is a MOOC](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW3gMGqcZQc) (video)
- [Success in a MOOC](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8avYQ5ZqM0)
(video)
- [Knowledge in a MOOC](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWKdhzSAAG0)
(video)
- [Introduction and
invitation](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqnyhLfNH3I) (video)
# collab-ex.md
# Part I.
*by*: Peter Taylor Collaborative Exploration invites participants to
shape their own directions of inquiry and develop their skills as
investigators and teachers (in the broadest sense of the word). The
basic mode of a Collaborative Exploration centers on interactions over a
delimited period of time in small groups. Engagement takes place either
online, for instance via Google+, or face-to-face. The aim is to create
an experience of re-engagement with oneself as an avid learner and
inquirer. This section combines practical information about how to run
Collaborative Explorations as well as ideas and questions about how to
make sense of what happens in them. A companion entry conveys one
participant’s experience with several Collaborative Explorations
(hereafter, “CE”).
## Overview and contrast to cMOOCs
The tangible goal of any CE is to develop contributions to the topic
defined by the “case”, which is written by the host or originator of the
CE in advance, and which is intended to be broad and thought-provoking
(some examples are given below). We aim for a parallel experiential
goal, which is that we hope participants will be impressed at how much
can be learned with a small commitment of time using this structure. The
standard model for an online CE is to have four sessions spaced one week
apart, in which the same small group interacts in real time via the
internet, for an hour per session. Participants are asked to spend at
least 90 minutes between sessions on self-directed inquiry into the
case, and to share their inquiries-in-progress with their small group
and a wider community. Reflection typically involves shifts in
participants' definition of what they want to find out and how. Any
participants wondering how to define a meaningful and useful line of
inquiry are encouraged to review the scenario for the CE, any associated
materials, posts from other participants, and think about what they
would like to learn more about or dig deeper into. Everyone is left, in
the end, to judge for themselves whether what interests them is
meaningful and useful. During the live sessions, participants can expect
to do a lot of listening, starting off in the first session with
autobiographical stories that make it easier to trust and take risks
with whoever has joined that CE, and a lot of writing to gather their
thoughts, sometimes privately, sometimes shared. There is no assumption
that participants will pursue the case beyond the limited duration of
the CE. This said, the tools and processes that the CE employs for
purposes of inquiry, dialogue, reflection, and collaboration are
designed to be readily learned by participants, and to translate well
into other settings -- for instance, where they can be used to support
the inquiries of others. In short, online CEs are moderate-sized open
online collaborative learning. It remains to be seen whether the CE
“movement” will attract enough participants to scale up to multiple
learning communities around any given scenario, each hosted by a
different person and running independently. A MOOC (massive open online
course) seeks to get masses of people registered, knowing that a tiny
fraction will complete it, while CE best practices focus on establishing
effective learning in small online communities, and then potentially
scale up from there by multiplying out. CEs aim to address the needs of
online learners who want to:
- dig deeper, make “thicker” connections with other learners
- connect topics with their own interests
- participate for short periods of time
- learn without needing credits or badges
Currently, even the most high-profile MOOCs do not appear to be
conducive to deep or thick inquiry. For example, while link-sharing is
typical in “connectivist” or “cMOOCs”, annotation and discussion of the
contents is less common. By contrast, CEs are structured to elicit
participants’ thoughtful reflections and syntheses. The use of the
internet for CEs, in contrast, is guided by two principles of online
education (Taylor 2007).
- Use computers first and foremost to teach or learn things that are
difficult to teach or learn with pedagogical approaches that are not
based on computers
- Model computer use, at least initially, on known best practices for
teaching/learning without computers.
Thus, CEs bring in participants from a distance, make rapid connections
with informants or discussants outside the course, and contribute to
evolving guides to materials and resources. At the same time,
participants benefit from the support of instructors/facilitators and
peers who they can trust, and integrate what they learn with their own
personal, pedagogical, and professional development.
## Example scenarios or “cases”
### Connectivist MOOCs: Learning and collaboration, possibilities and
limitations
The core faculty member of a graduate program at a public urban
university wants help as they decide how to contribute to efforts at the
university program to promote open digital education. It is clear that
the emphasis will not be on xMOOCs, i.e., those designed for
transmission of established knowledge, but on cMOOCs. In other words,
the plan is to emphasize connectivist learning and community development
emerges around, but may extend well beyond, the materials provided by
the MOOC hosts (Morrison 2013; Taylor 2013). What is not yet clear about
is just how learning works in cMOOCs. What are the possibilities and
limitations of this educational strategy? How do they bear on themes
like creativity, community, collaboration, and openness? The program is
especially interested in anticipating any undesirable consequences...
### Science and policy that would improve responses to extreme climatic
events
Recent and historical climate-related events shed light on the social
impact of emergency plans, investment in and maintenance of
infrastructure, as well as investment in reconstruction. Policy makers,
from the local level up, can learn from the experiences of others and
prepare for future crises. The question for this case is how to get
political authorities and political groups—which might be anywhere from
the town level to the international, from the elected to the
voluntary—interested in learning about how best to respond to extreme
climatic events. Changes might take place at the level of policy,
budget, organization, and so on. It should even be possible to engage
people who do not buy into the idea of human-induced climate
change—after all, whatever the cause, extreme climatic events have to be
dealt with....
## The structure
Independent of the topic, we’ve found the following common structure
useful for our online CEs. *Before the first live session*: Participants
review the scenario, the expectations and mechanics, join a
special-purpose Google+ community and get set up technically for the
hangouts. **Session 1**: *Participants getting to know each other*.
After freewriting to clarify thoughts and hopes, followed by a quick
check-in, participants take 5 minutes each to tell the story of how they
came to be a person who would be interested to participate in a
Collaborative Exploration on the scenario. Other participants note
connections with the speaker and possible ways to extend their
interests, sharing these using an online form. *Between-session work*:
Spend at least 90 minutes on inquiries related to the case, posting
about this to google+ community for the CE, and reviewing the posts of
others. **Session 2**: *Clarify thinking and inquiries*. Freewriting on
one’s thoughts about the case, followed by a check-in, then turn-taking
“dialogue process” to clarify what participants are thinking about their
inquiries into the case. Session finishes with gathering and sharing
thoughts using an online form. *Between-session work*: Spend at least 90
minutes (a) on inquiries related to the case and (b) preparing a
work-in-progress presentation. **Session 3**: *Work-in-progress
presentations*. 5 minutes for each participant, with “plus-delta”
feedback given by everyone on each presentation. *Between-session work*:
Digest the feedback on one’s presentation and revise it into a
self-standing product (i.e., one understandable without spoken
narration). **Session 4**: *Taking Stock*. Use same format as for
session 2 to explore participants’ thinking about (a) how the
Collaborative Exploration contributed to the topic (the tangible goal)
and to the experiential goal, as well as (b) how to extend what has
emerged during the CE. *After session 4 (optional)*: Participants share
on a public Google+ community not only the products they have prepared,
but also reflections on the Collaborative Exploration process.
## How to make sense of what happens in CEs
(Re-)engagement with oneself as an avid learner and inquirer in CEs is
made possible by the combination of:
- Processes and tools used for inquiry, dialogue, reflection, and
collaboration;
- Connections made among the diverse participants who bring to bear
diverse interests, skills, knowledge, experience, and aspirations;
and
Contributions from the participants to the topics laid out in scenarios
Figure 1. Triad of aspects of Collaborative Exploration The hope is that
through experiencing a (re-)engagement with learning, participants will
subsequently transfer experience with this triad (Figure 1) into their
own inquiries and teaching-learning interactions, the ways that they
support inquiries of others; other practices of critical intellectual
exchange and cooperation; and that they will be more prepared to
challenge the barriers to learning that are often associated with
expertise, location, time, gender, race, class, or age.
## Acknowledgements
The comments of Jeremy Szteiter and the contributions of the
participants of the 2013 Collaborative Explorations have helped in the
preparation of this article.
# Part II.
*by*: Teryl Cartwright As a May graduate of the Master’s program in
Critical and Creative Thinking (CCT) at UMass Boston, I owe my gratitude
to Professors Peter Taylor and Jeremy Szteiter for inviting me to
informally continue my education less than a month later. It is a
tribute to them that I would then take four consecutive CEs without
stopping. They can best share how to run a CE, but as a “student,” it is
how to creatively take a CE that inspires what I’d like to share.
## June 2013 CE: Scaffolding Creative Learning
I was grateful participants took the time to post links and ideas to
support my inquiries, yet something else intrigued me about the
potential of Collaborative Exploration. Luanne Witkowski, an artist and
one of the CCT instructors, took our ideas and made a diagram
incorporating our scaffolding concepts together; she changed her own
original drawing to include all of ours. I wanted to pay forward and
back my learning too, so I combined the ideas of all the participants,
adapted and taught a lesson outside the CE and then shared the results.
From this jumping into someone else’s scaffolding, I went into even more
experimental learning in the next CE.
## July 2013 CE: Design in Critical Thinking
In a second CE, I took the title literally and developed a design IN
critical thinking. To try out my triangle tangent thinking model, during
a lesson on leadership in church, I suddenly stopped teaching a
classroom of older professional adults halfway in and asked them to
participate in “design as you go” curriculum—by taking over the class.
Since I wanted to be fair, along with my lesson outline I had already
given them a supposed “icebreaker” activity that they could teach from,
although they also had the option of my continued teaching. Results? My
triangle drawing works as a lesson plan; the class took the tangent, but
surprisingly, I wasn’t just relegated to moderator, it became a true
co-facilitation,a model of change at the midpoint for both the
individual and community in the choices and direction.
## September 2013 CE: Everyone Can Think Creatively
This CE had to be commended for its participants humoring my project and
allowing the exploration of testing a CE itself. Was it possible to be a
Creative Failure in a Creativity CE? To evaluate “Creative Failure in a
Creativity CE,” I used a simple test. If creative success (unknowingly
given by my CE community) was a product both “novel AND useful,” any
post without a comment was a failure (“not useful”) to my readers. Any
post that a reader commented was similar to something else already done
was “useful,” but not novel. Failure had me posting again. Did I mention
what nice people these were when they didn’t know what I was doing? It
would have been easy for them to ignore my continued posting, yet the
community of a CE cannot be praised enough. They were supportive of me
and finding academic colleagues who have a sense of humor is mercifully
not novel, but extremely useful in this experience.
## October 2013 CE: Stories to Scaffold Creative Learning
In this CE I gave myself the challenge of indirect teaching. Could I be
a story “shower”, not teller? I took concepts important to me about
teaching with story, yet also tried to leave space for others’
interpretations. Ironically, in some ways creative failure
continued—again I was not as helpful as I had wished. This CE also had a
twist—no hero stories allowed, so my creative and personal stories had
to be ambiguous or use other connecting structures based on the
participants’ preferences. It was interesting which stories worked
best—fiction worked more with humor, real experience worked if I shared
about someone other than myself and other kinds worked with
visuals.Collaborative Explorations provide a safe space for the joint
learning and teaching to occur. The diversity blends well into a
community that is curious, courageous and creative. Although I have my
M.A. as the first completely online CCT student, I found almost a
face-to-face learning “feel” in their deeply connected CE community as
well. It does require time, openness and commitment to each other during
the intense focus together on a topic. Yet seeing where the
participant-directed ‘design as you go’ curriculum ends up is worth
investing in and sharing with others. After all, there are many other
ways still out there to try out CEs.
## Postscript
I also ran a CE for the Susquehanna Conference of the UMC for 10 days,
working with a group of professionals exploring a call into ordained
ministry. Going in cold, I had to work harder to do community building
without the Google hangout meetings and recommend their inclusion to
increase the comfort level and participation of the group members.
## Resources
Further examples of CE scenarios can be viewed at
[http://cct.wikispaces.com/CEt](http://cct.wikispaces.com/CEt).
Recommended readings below convey some of the sources for the CE
processes. Ideas about possible extensions of CEs can be viewed in the
full prospectus at
[http://cct.wikispaces.com/CEp](http://cct.wikispaces.com/CEp).
## References
1. Morrison, D. (2013). “[A tale of two MOOCs @ Coursera: Divided by
pedagogy](http://bit.ly/164uqkJ)”.
2. Taylor, P. J. (2007) "Guidelines for ensuring that educational
technologies are used only when there is significant pedagogical
benefit," International Journal of Arts and Sciences, 2 (1): 26-29,
2007 (adapted from [http://bit.ly/etguide](http://bit.ly/etguide)).
3. Taylor, P. J. (2013). “[Supporting change in creative
learning](http://wp.me/p1gwfa-vv)”.
## Recommended Reading
1. Paley, V. G. (1997). The Girl with the Brown Crayon. Cambridge, MA,
Harvard University Press.
2. Paley, V.G. (2010). The Boy on the Beach: Building Community by
Play. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
3. Taylor, P. J. and J. Szteiter (2012). Taking Yourself Seriously:
Processes of Research and Engagement Arlington, MA, The Pumping
Station.
4. White, M. (2011). Narrative Practice: Continuing the Conversation.
New York, Norton.
# cofac.md
Authors: Maria Arenas and Charlie Danoff
Facilitation is a process of helping groups work cooperatively and
effectively. Facilitation can be particularly helpful for individuals
who, based on a certain level of insecurity or inexperience, tend to
lurk rather than participate. At the same time, it in peeragogy, a
facilitator isn't necessarily an "authority": rather, facilitation work
is done in service to the group and the group dialogue and process. For
example, a facilitator may simply "hold space" for the group, by setting
up a meeting or a regular series of discussions.
## Co-facilitating in peer-to-peer learning
Co-facilitation can be found in collaborations between two or more
people who need each other to complete a task, for example, learn about
a given subject, author a technical report, solve a problem, or conduct
research Dee Fink writes that “in this process, there has to be some
kind of change in the learner. No change, no learning” [1]. Significant
learning requires that there be some kind of lasting change that is
important in terms of the learner’s life; in peeragogy, one way to
measure the effectiveness of co-facilitation is to look for a change in
the peer group.
Co-facilitation roles can be found in groups/teams like basketball,
health, Alcoholics Anonymous, spiritual groups, etc. For example,
self-help groups are composed of people who gather to share common
problems and experiences associated with a particular problem,
condition, illness, or personal circumstance. There are some further
commonalities across different settings. Commenting on the work of Carl
Rogers:
> **Godfrey Barrett-Lennard**: The educational situation which most
> effectively promotes significant learning is one in which (1) threat
> to the self of the learner is reduced a minimum, and (2)
> differentiated perception of the field of experience is facilitated.
> [2]
Part of the facilitator's role is to create a safe place for learning to
take place; but they should also challenge the participants.
> **John Heron**: Too much hierarchical control, and participants become
> passive and dependent or hostile and resistant. They wane in
> self-direction, which is the core of all learning. Too much
> cooperative guidance may degenerate into a subtle kind of nurturing
> oppression, and may deny the group the benefits of totally autonomous
> learning. Too much autonomy for participants and laissez-faire on your
> part, and they may wallow in ignorance, misconception, and chaos. [3]
## Co-facilitating discussion forums
If peers are preparing a forum discussion, here are some ideas from
“[The Community Tool
Box](http://ctb.ku.edu/en/tablecontents/section_1180.aspx)”, that can be
helpful as guidelines:
- Explain the importance of collaborative group work and make it a
requirement.
- Establish how you will communicate in the forum.
- Be aware of mutual blind spots in facilitating and observing others.
- Watch out for different rhythms of intervention.
## Co-facilitating wiki workflows
A good place to begin for any group of co-facilitators working with a
wiki are Wikipedia's famous "5 Pillars."
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
- Wikipedia writes articles from a neutral point-of-view.
- Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and
distribute.
- Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil
manner.
- Wikipedia does not have firm rules.
## Co-facilitating live sessions
Learning experiences in live sessions are described in the article
[Learning Re-imagined: Participatory, Peer, Global,
Online](http://dmlcentral.net/blog/howard-rheingold/learning-reimagined-participatory-peer-global-online)
by Howard Rheingold, and many of these points are revisited in the
handbook section on [real-time
tools](http://peeragogy.org/real-time-meetings/ "Real-time meetings").
But we want to emphasize one point here:
> **Howard Rheingold**: Remember you came together with your peers to
> accomplish something, not to discuss an agenda or play with online
> tools; keep everything as easily accessible as possible to ensure you
> realize your goals.
## References
1. Fink, L. D (2003). *Creating significant learning experiences: An
integrated approach to designing college courses*. John Wiley &
Sons.
2. Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (1998). *Carl Rogers' Helping System: Journey
& Substance*. Sage.
3. Heron, J. (1999). *The complete facilitator's handbook*. London:
Kogan Page.
# workscape.md
Cultivating a results-oriented peer-learning program in a corporate
learning ecosystem involves a few tweaks of the approach and tools we
discussed in relation to more open, diverse networks.
## The Workscape, a platform for learning
Formal learning takes place in classrooms; informal learning happens in
*workscapes.* A workscape is a learning ecology. As the environment of
learning, a workscape includes the workplace. In fact, a workscape has
no boundaries. No two workscapes are alike. Your workscape may include
being coached on giving effective presentations, calling the help desk
for an explanation, and researching an industry on the Net. My workscape
could include participating in a community of field technicians, looking
things up on a search engine, and living in France for three months.
Developing a platform to support informal learning is analogous to
landscaping a garden. A major component of informal learning is natural
learning, the notion of treating people as organisms in nature. The
people are free-range learners. Our role is to protect their
environment, provide nutrients for growth, and let nature take its
course. A landscape designer’s goal is to conceptualize a harmonious,
unified, pleasing garden that makes the most of the site at hand. A
workscape designer’s goal is to create a learning environment that
increases the organization’s longevity and health and the individual’s
happiness and well-being. Gardeners don’t control plants; managers don’t
control people. Gardeners and managers have influence but not absolute
authority. They can’t makea plant fit into the landscape or a person fit
into a team. In an ideal Workscape, workers can easily find the people
and information they need, learning is fluid and new ideas flow freely,
corporate citizens live and work by the organization’s values, people
know the best way to get things done, workers spend more time creating
value than handling exceptions, and everyone finds their work
challenging and fulfilling.
## The technical infrastructure of the Workscape
When an organization is improving its Workscape, looking at consumer
applications is a good way to think about what’s required. Ask net-savvy
younger workers how they would like to learn new skills, and they bring
up the features they enjoy in other services:
- Personalize my experience and make recommendations, like Amazon.
- Make it easy for me to connect with friends, like Facebook.
- Keep me in touch with colleagues and associates in other companies,
as on LinkedIn.
- Persistent reputations, as at eBay, so you can trust who you’re
collaborating with.
- Multiple access options, like a bank that offers access by ATM, the
Web, phone, or human tellers.
- Don’t overload me. Let me learn from YouTube, an FAQ, or linking to
an expert.
- Show me what’s hot, like Reddit, Digg, MetaFilter, or Fark do.
- Give me single sign-on, like using my Facebook profile to access
multiple applications.
- Let me choose and subscribe to streams of information I’m interested
in, like BoingBoing, LifeHacker or Huffpost.
- Provide a single, simple, all-in-one interface, like that provided
by Google for search.
- Help me learn from a community of kindred spirits, like SlashDot,
Reddit, and MetaFilter.
- Give me a way to voice my opinions and show my personality, as on my
blog.
- Show me what others are interested in, as with social bookmarks like
Diigo and Delicious.
- Make it easy to share photos and video, as on Flickr and YouTube.
- Leverage “the wisdom of crowds,” as when I pose a question to my
followers on Twitter or Facebook.
- Enable users to rate content, like “Favoriting” an item on Facebook
or +!ing is on Google or YouTube.
Some of those consumer applications are simple to replicate in-house.
Others are not. You can’t afford to replicate Facebook or Google behind
your firewall. That said, there are lots of applications you can
implement at reasonable cost. Be skeptical if your collaborative
infrastructure that doesn’t include these minimal functions:
**Profiles** - for locating and contacting people with the right skills
and background. Profile should contain photo, position, location, email
address, expertise (tagged so it’s searchable). IBM’s Blue Pages
profiles include how to reach you (noting whether you’re online now),
reporting chain (boss, boss’s boss, etc.), link to your blog and
bookmarks, people in your network, links to documents you frequently
share, members of your network.
**Activity stream** - for monitoring the organization pulse in real
time, sharing what you’re doing, being referred to useful information,
asking for help, accelerating the flow of news and information, and
keeping up with change
**Wikis** - for writing collaboratively, eliminating multiple versions
of documents, keeping information out in the open, eliminating
unnecessary email, and sharing responsibility for updates and error
correction
**Virtual meetings** - to make it easy to meet online. Minimum feature
set: shared screen, shared white board, text chat, video of
participants. Bonus features: persistent meeting room (your office
online), avatars.
**Blogs** - for narrating your work, maintaining your digital
reputation, recording accomplishments, documenting expert knowledge,
showing people what you’re up to so they can help out
**Bookmarks** - to facilitate searching for links to information,
discover what sources other people are following, locate experts
**Mobile access** - Half of America’s workforce sometimes works away
from the office. Smart phones are surpassing PCs for connecting to
networks for access and participation. Phones post most Tweets than
computers. Google designs its apps for mobile before porting them to
PCs.
**Social network** - for online conversation, connecting with people,
and all of the above functions.
## Conclusion
Learning used to focus on what was in an individual's head. The
individual took the test, got the degree, or earned the certificate. The
new learning focuses on what it takes to do the job right. The workplace
is an open-book exam. What worker doesn't have a cell phone and an
Internet connection? Using personal information pipelines to get help
from colleagues and the Internet to access the world's information is
encouraged. Besides, it’s probably the team that must perform, not a
single individual. Thirty years ago, three-quarters of what a worker
need to do the job was stored in her head; now it’s less than 10%.
# participation.md
> Methods of managing projects, including learning projects, range from
> more formal and structured to casual and unstructured. As a
> facilitator, you'll see your peeragogy community constantly adjust, as
> it seeks an equilibrium between order and chaos, ideally allowing
> everyone to be involved at their own pace without losing focus, and in
> such a manner that the collective can deliver.
For teachers reading this, and wondering how to use peeragogy to improve
participation in their classrooms, it's really quite simple: reframe the
educational vision using peeragogical eyes. Recast the classroom as a
community of people who learn together, the teacher as facilitator, and
the curriculum as a starting point that can be used to organize and
trigger community engagement. However, just because it's simple doesn't
mean it's easy! Whatever your day job may be, consider: how well do the
various groups you participate in work together -- even when the members
ostensibly share a common purpose? Sometimes things tick along nicely,
and, presumably, sometimes it's excruciating. What's your role in all of
this? How do *you* participate?
Hey you, stop this train!
## Guidelines for participation
- Accept that some people want to watch what is going on before
jumping in. This doesn't mean you have to keep them hanging around
forever. After a while, you may un-enroll people who don't add any
value to the community. In our Peeragogy project, we've asked people
to explicitly re-enroll several times. Most do renew; some leave.
- Accept that people may only contribute a little: if this
contribution is good it will add value to the whole.
- Understand that you can not impose strict deadlines on volunteers;
adjust targets accordingly.
- Let your work be "open" in the sense described in Wikipedia's
[Neutral Point of
View](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view)
policy.
- Give roles to participants and define some "energy centers" who will
take the lead on specific items in the project.
- Organize regular face-to-face or online meetings to talk about
progress and what's needed in upcoming days/weeks.
- Ask participants to be clear about when they will be ready to
deliver their contributions.
- Have clear deadlines, but allow contributions that come in after the
deadline -- in general, be flexible.
- Add a newcomer section on your online platform to help new arrivals
get started. Seasoned participants are often eager to serve as
mentors.
When we think about project management in an organization, we often
relate to well-established tools and processes. For example, we can use
the [Project Management Body of
Knowledge](http://www.pmi.org/PMBOK-Guide-and-Standards.aspx) (PMBOK) as
a standard. For the Project Management Institute (PMI) and many workers,
these standards are seen as the key to project success. In classical
project management, tasks and deadlines are clearly defined. We will,
for example, use [Program Evaluation and Review
Technic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PERT) (PERT) to analyze and
represent tasks. We often represent the project schedule using a [Gantt
chart](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gantt_chart). Those are just two of
the project management tools that illustrate how "mainstream" project
management rests firmly on an engineering background. In these very
structured projects, each actor is expected to work exactly as planned
and to deliver his part of the work on time; every individual delay can
potentially lead to a collective delay.
Peeragogy projects may be, naturally, a bit different from other
settings, although we can potentially reuse both formal and informal
methods of organization. For example, unlike a typical wiki -- or
classroom -- peeragogy projects often expect to break the [90/9/1
rule](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%_rule_(Internet_culture)). Keep in
mind that some participants may not contribute all the time -- but one
really good idea can be a major contribution. See the anti-pattern
“[Misunderstanding
Power](http://peeragogy.org/practice/antipatterns/misunderstanding-power/ "Misunderstanding power")”
for some further reflections on these matters.
How are we doing? If we take our Google+ Community have contributed to
the handbook as the basic population, then as of January 2014, over 4%
have contributed -- pretty good. However, we have yet to reach a
contribution profile like 70/20/10. It's important to remember that --
especially in a volunteer organization -- no one can "make'" other
people participate, and that all the lists of things to do are for
nought if no one steps in to do the work. For this reason, if anything
is going to happen, what's needed are *realistic* estimates of available
work effort. Finally, in closing this section, we want to emphasize that
measures of participation offer only a very rough proxy for measures of
learning, although the two are clearly related.
# coworking.md
Author: Joe Corneli
> The word "learning" does not adequately capture what it means to
> figure out the “*for what purpose or reason*” dimension that is
> essential for a peeragogical endeavor. Interpersonal exchange and
> collaboration to develop and pursue common goals goes further than
> "learning" or "working" in their mainstream definitions. This article
> will look at examples drawn from Linux, Wikipedia, and my own work on
> PlanetMath, with a few surprises along the way, leading us to new ways
> of thinking about how to do co-design when build systems for peer
> learning and peer production.
## Co-working as the flip side of convening
> **Linus Torvalds**: The first mistake is thinking that you can throw
> things out there and ask people to help. That's not how it works. You
> make it public, and then you assume that you'll have to do all the
> work, and ask people to come up with suggestions of what you should
> do, not what they should do. Maybe they'll start helping eventually,
> but you should start off with the assumption that you're going to be
> the one maintaining it and ready to do all the work. The other
> thing--and it's kind of related--that people seem to get wrong is to
> think that the code they write is what matters. No, even if you wrote
> 100% of the code, and even if you are the best programmer in the world
> and will never need any help with the project at all, the thing that
> really matters is the users of the code. The code itself is
> unimportant; the project is only as useful as people actually find it.
In fact, we can think of contributors as a special class of "user" with
a real time investment in the way the project works. We typically cannot
"Tom Sawyer" ourselves into leisure or ease just because we manage to
work collaboratively, or just because we have found people with some
common interests. And yet, in the right setting, many people do want to
contribute! For example, on "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can
edit" (as of 2011) [as many
as](http://%20http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/wikipedias_goal_1_billion_monthly_visitors_by_2015.php)
80,000 visitors make 5 or more edits per month.
This is interesting to compare with the [empirical
fact](http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia) that (as of
2006) "over 50% of all the edits are done by just .7% of the users… 24
people...and in fact the most active 2%, which is 1400 people, have done
73.4% of all the edits." Similar numbers apply to other peer production
communities.
## A little theory
In many natural systems, things are not distributed equally, and it is
not atypical for e.g. 20% of the population to control 80% of the wealth
(or, as we saw, for 2% of the users to do nearly 80% of the edits).
Many, many systems work like this, so maybe there's a good reason for
it.
Let's think about it in terms of "coordination" as understood by the
late Elinor Ostrom. She talked about "local solutions for local
problems". By definition, such geographically-based coordination
requires close proximity. What does "close" mean? If we think about
homogeneous space, it just means that we draw a circle (or sphere)
around where we are, and the radius of this circle (resp. sphere) is
small.
An interesting [mathematical
fact](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-sphere#Volume_and_surface_area) is
that as the dimension grows, the volume of the sphere gets "thinner", so
the radius must increase to capture the same *d*-dimensional volume when
*d* grows! In other words, the more different factors impact on a given
issue, the less likely there are to be small scale, self-contained,
"local problems" or "local solutions" in the first place.
As a network or service provider grows (like a
[MOOC](http://peeragogy.org/organize/connectivism-in-practice-how-to-organize-a-mooc/ "Connectivism in Practice – How to organize a cMOOC")
as opposed to a [Collaborative
Exploration](http://peeragogy.org/case-study-collaborative-explorations/ "Case Study: Collaborative Explorations"),
for example), they typically build many weak ties, with a few strong
ties that hold it all together. Google is happy to serve everyone's web
requests -- but they can't have just anyone walking in off the street
and connecting devices their network in Mountain View.
By the way, the 2006 article on Wikipedia quoted above was written by
Aaron Swartz ("over 50% of all the edits are done by… 24 people", etc.),
who achieved considerable
[notoriety](http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/swartz-arrest/) for
doing something similar with MIT's network. His is a particularly sad
case of one person acting alone and drawing significant ire from
institutions and governments; we could contrast Aaron Swartz, the
individual, with the peer-to-peer infrastructures like the ones that run
PirateBay, which have proved much harder to stop.
## Co-working: what is an institution?
As idealists, we would love to be able to create systems that are both
powerful and humane. Some may reflect with a type of sentimental
fondness on completely mythical economic systems in which a "dedicated
individual could rise to the top through dint of effort."
Well-articulated systems like this *do* exist, however: natural
languages, for example, are so expressive and adaptive that most
sentences have never been said before. A well-articulated system lends
itself to "local solutions to local problems" -- but in the linguistics
case, this is only because all words are not created equal.
> **Dr Seuss**: My brothers read a little bit. Little words like 'If'
> and 'It.' My father can read big words, too, Like CONSTANTINOPLE and
> TIMBUKTU.
We could go on here to talk about Coase's theory of the firm, and
Benkler's theory of “[Coase's
Penguin](http://www.yale.edu/yalelj/112/BenklerWEB.pdf)”. We might
continue [quoting](http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/perfectinstitutions)
from Aaron Swartz. But we will not get so deeply into that here: you can
explore it on your own! For now, it is enough to say that an institution
is a bit like a language. This will help us a lot in the next section.
## Designing a platform for peer learning* *
> [PlanetMath](planetmath.org "PlanetMath.org") *is a virtual community
> which aims to help make mathematical knowledge more accessible.*
In my PhD thesis [1], I talk about my work to turn this long-running
website, which since 2001 had focused on building a mathematics
encyclopedia, into a peer produced peer learning environment. The
picture below shows the basic idea. We would retain all of the old
activities related to authoring, reviewing, and discussing encyclopedia
articles, but we would also add a bunch of new features having to do
with mathmatical problem solving, an activity that is suitable for
mathematical beginners.
[](http://peeragogy.org/co-working/learning-design/)
My first translation of that sketch into a basic interaction design was
as follows. People can continue to add articles to PlanetMath's
encyclopedia: they can connect one article to another either by making
one article the "parent" of another (A
A), or, more typically, via an inline link, *l*. Like in the old system,
users can discuss any object (X
T), but now there is more structure: *problems* can be connected to
articles (A
P) and *solutions* can be connected to problems (P
S). Instead of explicitly modeling "goals," the idea I came up with was
that problems and articles could be organized into "collections," the
same way that videos are organized into playlists on YouTube, and that
the user would get encouraging feedback as they work their way through
the problems in a given collection. I described a few other types of
objects and interactions that were not present in the above sketch, like
questions and answers, groups, and the ability to change the "type" of
certain contributed objects. This table summarizes the overall design.
[](http://peeragogy.org/co-working/initial-design/)
The next step was to do a complete overhaul of PlanetMath's software
system, to build something that could actually *do* all of that. After
deploying the system and doing some studies with PlanetMath users
(described in the handbook section on Researching Peeragogy), I realized
the design summarized above was not complete. Note that this is very
much along the lines of what Linus Torvalds said above: I did the
design, and me and a small group of collaborators with their own vested
interests built the system, then we put it out there to get more ideas
from users. Here is the updated table, coming out of the co-design
process.
[](http://peeragogy.org/co-working/second-design/)
The main thing that was missing from the earlier design was the idea of
a *project*. From interviewing users, it became clear to me that it
would be helpful to think of every object as being part of at least one
project: everything should have someone looking after it! Importantly,
getting back to the very beginning of this article, each project can
define its own purpose for existing. Here's how I put it in my thesis:
> *Actions and artifacts are embedded with projects, which can be
> modeled in terms of informal user experience and formal system
> features. Project updates can be modeled with a language of
> fundamental actions. Projects themselves model their outcomes, and are
> made “viable” by features that connect to the motivations and
> ambitions of potential participants.*
The key point to make about these tables is that they describe a
"grammar" for the kinds of things that can be done on PlanetMath. In the
updated grammar, projects are like sentences. The language can be
extended further, and I hope this will happen in further study. In
particular, we need to understand more about how the "sub-language" of
project updates (which connects to our
[Roadmap](http://peeragogy.org/practice/roadmap/ "Roadmap") pattern).
## Another way to think about things
The five categories I used above (Context, Engagement, Quality,
Structure, and Heuristic) come from reflecting on the 5 paragogy
principles, and comparing them with the [5 rules for the evolution of
cooperation](http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic426436.files/five_rules.pdf)
that were developed by Martin Nowak [2]. The analogies between these two
sets of five categories are not perfect, and this exercise was meant to
inspire, rather than to constrain, thoughts on the learning/platform
design. Nowak's formalism is meant to be general enough to describe many
different kinds of collaboration: I'll review the key points below, and
show how they inspired my thinking about PlanetMath. The broader reason
why Nowak's work is so essential is that we already have theories of
local collaboration (like Ostrom's, mentioned above): his five rules can
act as "glue" that bring different local entities together. I hope you
can use these ideas in your own design projects!
> *In a "kin selection" regime, we cooperate with whomever (or whatever)
> is "related".*
On PlanetMath, the most important senses of "relatedness" apply to
elements of the subject domain: encyclopedia pages are linked together
if the topics relate.
> *In a "direct reciprocity" regime, we help those who help us.*
One of the key legacy features of PlanetMath is that every object in the
system is "discussable." This is the most easily graspable sort of peer
interaction, direct feedback, starting a conversation.
> *In an "indirect reciprocity" regime, we are building something that
> may be useful later on -- like a good reputation.*
An important legacy feature of PlanetMath is that, unlike Wikipedia,
articles are not generally open to the public to edit: high-quality
resources "emerge" from the mediated engagement of individuals in a peer
review process.
> *In a "spatial selection" regime, we are again defining an "inside"
> and "outside."*
With the new system, we see that "an article without an attached
problem" is not as practical as an article that has an attached problem;
similarly, "a problem without a solution" is lacking something. This
helps people see what's missing, and what remains to be done.
> *In a "group selection" regime, we are building "sets" of activities
> and patterns (milestones, roles) which can then act as selectors for
> behavior. *
Co-working requires people to be able to join groups, and it requires
the groups to be able to structure their workflow. In some sense this is
similar to an individual's work being structured by the use of
heuristics. A person's choice to join this group instead of that one, is
a basic social heuristic.
## The discussion continues: Reliving the history of mathematics as a
peeragogical game?
These notes have shown one approach to the design of spaces for learning
and knowledge building. Although the article has focused on mathematics
learning, similar reflections would apply to designing other sorts of
learning spaces, for instance, to the continued development of the
Peeragogy project itself! -- and perhaps to the development of a new
kind of institutions.
> **Doug Breitbart**: It occurred to me that you could add a learning
> dimension to the site that sets up the history of math as a series of
> problems, proofs and theorems that, although already solved, could be
> re-cast as if not yet solved, and framed as current challenges which
> visitors could take on (clearly with links to the actual solutions,
> and deconstruction of how they were arrived at, when the visitor
> decides to throw in the towel).
## Reference
1. Corneli, J. (2014). [Peer Produced Peer Learning: A Mathematics Case
Study](http://metameso.org/~joe/thesis-outline.html). Unpublished
Ph. D. thesis. The Open University.
2. Nowak, M. (2006). [Five rules for the evolution of
cooperation](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/314/5805/1560.full),
*Science*.
# coworking-story.md
The board of a housing association needs to set a strategy that takes
account of major changes in legislation, the UK benefits system and the
availability of long term construction loans. Julian, eager to make use
of his new-found peeragogical insights suggests an approach where
individuals research specific factors and the team work together to draw
out themes and strategic options. As a start he proposes that each board
member researches an area of specific knowledge or interest.
> Jim, the Chairman, identifies questions he wants to ask the Chairs of
> other Housing Associations. Pamela (a lawyer) agrees to do an analysis
> of the relevant legislation. Clare, the CEO, plans out a series of
> meetings with the local councils in the boroughs of interest to
> understand their reactions to the changes from central government.
> Jenny, the operations director, starts modelling the impact on
> occupancy from new benefits rules. Colin, the development director,
> re-purposes existing work on options for development sites to reflect
> different housing mixes on each site. Malcolm, the finance director,
> prepares a briefing on the new treasury landscape and the changing
> positions of major lenders.
Each member of the board documents their research in a private wiki.
Julian facilitates some synchronous and asynchronous discussion to draw
out themes in each area and map across the areas of interest. Malcolm,
the FD, adapts his financial models to take different options as
parameters. Clare refines the themes into a set of strategic options for
the association, with associated financial modelling provided by
Malcolm. Individual board members explore the options asynchronously
before convening for an all-day meeting to confirm the strategy.
# assessment.md
Authors: Joe Corneli and David Preston
> This article is about both assessment in peer learning and an exercise
> in assessment, as we put our strategy for assessment into practice by
> evaluating the [Peeragogy
> Handbook](http://peeragogy.org "Peer Handbook") itself.
## Adapting strategies for learning assessment to the peer-learning
context
In “[Effective Grading: A Tool for Learning and
Assessment](http://books.google.com/books?id=EJxy06yX_NoC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false "Effective Grading: A Tool for Learning and Assessment"),”
Barbara E. Walvoord and Virginia Johnson Anderson have outlined an
approach to grading. They address three questions:
1. Who needs to know, and why?
2. Which data are collected?
3. How does the assessment body analyze data and present findings?
The authors suggest that institutions, departments, and assessment
committees should begin with these simple questions and work from them
towards anything more complex. These simple questions provide a way to
understand - and assess - any strategy for assessment! For example,
consider "formative assessment" (in other words, keeping track of how
things are going). In this context, the answers to the questions above
would be:
1. Teachers need to know about the way students are thinking about
their work, so they can deliver better teaching.
2. Teachers gather a lot of these details on learning activities by
"listening over the shoulders" of students.
3. Teachers apply analysis techniques that come from their training or
experience -- and they do not necessarily present their assessments
to students directly, but rather, feed it back in the form of
improved teaching.
This is very much a "teacher knows best" model! In order to do something
like formative assessment among peers, we would have to make quite a few
adjustments.
1. At least some of the project participants would have to know how
other participants are thinking about their work as well as
analyzing their own progress. We are then able to "deliver better
teaching" and work together to problem-solve when difficulties
arise.
2. It may be most convenient for each participant to take on a share of
the work (e.g. by maintaining a "learning journal" which might be
shared with other participants). This imposes a certain overhead,
but as we remarked elsewhere, "meta-learning is a font of
knowledge!" Outside of persistent self-reflection, details about
others' learning can sometimes be abstracted from their
contributions to the project ("learning analytics" is a whole topic
unto itself).
3. If a participant in a "learning project" is bored, frustrated,
feeling closed-minded, or for whatever other reason "not learning,"
then there is definitely a question. But for whom? For the person
who isn't learning? For the collective as a whole? We may not have
to ponder this conundrum for long: if we go back to the idea that
"learning is adaptation," someone who is not learning in a given
context will likely leave and find another context where they can
learn more.
This is but one example of an assessment strategy: in addition to
"formative assessment", "diagnostic" and "summative" strategies are also
quite popular in mainstream education. The main purpose of this section
has been to show that when the familiar roles from formal education
devolve "to the people," the way assessment looks can change a lot. In
the following section, we offer and begin to implement an assessment
strategy for evaluating the peeragogy project as a whole.
## Case study in peeragogical evaluation: the Peeragogy project itself
We can evaluate this project partly in terms of its main "deliverable,"
the Peeragogy Handbook (which you are now reading). In particular, we
can ask: Is this handbook useful for its intended audience? If so, in
what ways? If not, how can we adapt? The "intended audience" could
potentially include anyone who is participating in a peer learning
project, or who is thinking about starting one. We can also evaluate the
learning experience that the co-creators of this handbook have had. Has
working on this book been a useful experience for those involved? These
are two very different questions, with two different targets for
analysis -- though the book's co-creators are also part of the "intended
audience". Indeed, we might start by asking "how has working on this
book been useful for us?"
### A methodological interlude: "Follow the money"
The metrics for learning in corporations are business metrics based on
financial data. Managers want to know: "Has the learning experience
enhanced the workers' productivity? When people ask about the ROI of
informal learning, ask them how they measure the ROI of formal learning.
Test scores, grades, self-evaluations, attendance, and certifications
prove nothing. The ROI of any form of learning is the value of changes
in behavior divided by the cost of inducing the change. Like the tree
falling over in the forest with no one to hear it, if there’s no change
in behavior over the long haul, no learning took place. ROI is in the
mind of the beholder, in this case, the sponsor of the learning who is
going to decide whether or not to continue investing. Because the figure
involves judgment, it’s never going to be accurate to the first decimal
place. Fortunately, it doesn’t have to be. Ballpark numbers are solid
enough for making decisions.
[](http://peeragogy.org/assessment/jay-cross/)
~ Are we serving the customer better? [Assessing Workplace
Learning](http://vimeo.com/45989089) from [Jay
Cross](http://vimeo.com/user7021511) on Vimeo
The process begins before the investment is made. What degree of change
will the sponsor accept as worthy of reinvestment? How are we going to
measure that? What’s an adequate level of change? What’s so low we’ll
have to adopt a different approach? How much of the change can we
attribute to learning? You need to gain agreement on these things
beforehand. Monday morning quarterbacking is not credible. It’s
counterproductive to assess learning immediately after it occurs. You
can see if people are engaged or if they’re complaining about getting
lost, but you cannot assess what sticks until the forgetting curve has
ravaged the learners’ memories for a few months. Interest also doesn't
guarantee results in learning, though it helps. Without reinforcement,
people forget most of what they learn in short order. It’s beguiling to
try to correlate the impact of learning with existing financial metrics
like increased revenues or better customer service scores. Done on its
own, this approach rarely works because learning is but one of many
factors that influence results, even in the business world. Was today's
success due to learning or the ad campaign or weak competition or the
sales contest or something else? The best way to assess how people learn
is to ask them. How did you figure out how to do this? Who did you learn
this from? How did that change your behavior? How can we make it better?
How will you? Self-evaluation through reflective practice can build both
metacognition and self-efficacy in individuals and groups. Too time
consuming? Not if you interview a representative sample. For example,
interviewing less than 100 people out of 2000 yields an answer within
10% nineteen times out of twenty, a higher confidence level than most
estimates in business. Interviewing 150 people will give you the right
estimate 99% of the time.
### Roadmaps in Peer Learning
We have identified several basic and more elaborated patterns that
describe “the Peeragogy effect”. These have shaped the way we think
about things since. We think the central pattern is the Roadmap, which
can apply at the individual level, as a personal learning plan, or at a
project level. As we've indicated, sometimes people simply plan to see
what happens: alternative versions of the Roadmap might be a compass, or
even the ocean chart from the *Hunting of the Snark*. The roadmap may
just be a North Star, or it may include detailed reasons “why,” further
exposition about the goal, indicators of progress, a section for future
work, and so forth. Our initial roadmap for the project was the
preliminaly outline of the handbook; as the handbook approached
completion at the “2.0” level, we spun off additional goals into a new
roadmap for a Peeragogy Accelerator. Additional patterns flesh out the
project’s properties in an open “agora” of possibilities. Unlike the
ocean, our map retains traces of where we've been, and what we've
learned. In an effort to document these ”paths in the grass,” we
prepared a short survey for Peeragogy project participants. We asked
people how they had participated (e.g., by signing up for access to the
Social Media Classroom and mailing list, joining the Google+ Community,
authoring articles, etc.) and what goals or interests motivated their
participation. We asked them to describe the Peeragogy project itself in
terms of its aims and to evaluate its progress over the first year of
its existence. As another measure of “investment” in the project, we
asked, with no strings attached, whether the respondent would consider
donating to the Peeragogy project. This survey was circulated to 223
members of the Peeragogy Google+ community, as well as to the currently
active members of the Peeragogy mailing list. The responses outlining
the project’s purpose ranged from the general: “How to make sense of
learning in our complex times” - to much more specific:
> **Anonymous Survey Respondent 1**: Push education further, providing a
> toolbox and [techniques] to self-learners. In the peeragogy.org
> introduction page we assume that self-learners are self-motivated,
> that may be right but the Handbook can also help them to stay
> motivated, to motivate others and to face obstacles that may erode
> motivation.
Considering motivation as a key factor, it is interesting to observe how
various understandings of the project’s aims and its flaws intersected
with personal motivations. For example, one respondent (who had only
participated by joining the Google+ community) was: “[Seeking]
[i]nformation on how to create and engage communities of interest with a
shared aim of learning.” More active participants justified their
participation in terms of what they get out of taking an active role,
for instance:
> **Anonymous Survey Respondent 2**: “Contributing to the project allows
> me to co-learn, share and co-write ideas with a colourful mix of great
> minds. Those ideas can be related to many fields, from communication,
> to technology, to psychology, to sociology, and more.”
The most active participants justified their participation in terms of
beliefs or a sense of mission:
> **Anonymous Survey Respondent 3**: “Currently we are witnessing many
> efforts to incorporate technology as an important tool for the
> learning process. However, most of the initiatives are reduced to the
> technical aspect (apps, tools, social networks) without any
> theoretical or epistemological framework. Peeragogy is rooted in many
> theories of cooperation and leads to a deeper level of understanding
> about the role of technology in the learning process. I am convinced
> of the social nature of learning, so I participate in the project to
> learn and find new strategies to learn better with my students.”
Or again:
> **Anonymous Survey Respondent 4**: “I wanted to understand how ”peer
> production” really works. Could we create a well-articulated system
> that helps people interested in peer production get their own goals
> accomplished, and that itself grows and learns? Peer production seems
> linked to learning and sharing - so I wanted to understand how that
> works.”
They also expressed criticism of the project, implying that they may
feel rather powerless to make the changes that would correct course:
> **Anonymous Survey Respondent 5**: “Sometimes I wonder whether the
> project is not too much ‘by education specialists for education
> specialists.’ I have the feeling peer learning is happening anyway,
> and that teens are often amazingly good at it. Do they need ‘learning
> experts’ or ‘books by learning experts’ at all? Maybe they are the
> experts. Or at least, quite a few of them are.”
Another respondent was more blunt:
> **Anonymous Survey Respondent 6**: “What problems do you feel we are
> aiming to solve in the Peeragogy project? We seem to not be sure. How
> much progress did we make in the first year? Some... got stuck in
> theory.”
But, again, it is not entirely clear how the project provides clear
pathways for contributors to turn their frustrations into changed
behavior or results. Additionally we need to be entirely clear that we
are indeed paving new ground with our work. If there are proven peer
learning methods out there we have not examined and included in our
efforts, we need to find and address them. Peeragogy is not about
reinventing the wheel. It is also not entirely clear whether excited new
peers will find pathways to turn their excitement into shared products
or process. For example, one respondent (who had only joined the Google+
community) had not yet introduced current, fascinating projects
publicly:
> **Anonymous Survey Respondent 7**: “I joined the Google+ community
> because I am interested in developing peer to peer environments for my
> students to learn in. We are moving towards a community-based,
> place-based program where we partner with community orgs like our
> history museum for microhistory work, our local watershed community
> and farmer’s markets for local environmental and food issues, etc. I
> would love for those local efforts working with adult mentors to
> combine with a peer network of other HS students in some kind of cMOOC
> or social media network.”
Responses such as this highlight our need to make ourselves available to
hear about exciting new projects from interested peers, simultaneously
giving them easier avenues to share. Our work on developing a peeragogy
accelerator in the next section is an attempt to address this situation.
### Summary
We can reflect back on how this feedback bears on the main sections of
this book with a few more selected quotes. These motivate further
refinement to our strategies for working on this project, and help build
a constructively-critical jumping off point for future projects that put
peeragogy into action. **Cooperate** *How can we build strong
collaboration?* "A team is not a group of people who work together. A
team is not a group of people who work together. A team is a group of
people who trust each other." **Convene** *How can we build a more
practical focus?* "The insight that the project will thrive if people
are working hard on their individual problems and sharing feedback on
the process seems like the key thing going forward. This feels valuable
and important." **Organize** *How connect with newcomers and oldcomers?*
"I just came on board a month ago. I am designing a self-organizing
learning environment (SOLE) or PLE/PLN that I hope will help enable
communities of life long learners to practice digital literacies."
**Assess** *How can we be effective and relevant?* "I am game to also
explore ways attach peeragogy to spaces where funding can flow based on
real need in communities."
## Conclusion
We can estimate individual learning by examining the real problems
solved by the individual. It makes sense to assess the way groups solve
problems in a similar way. Solving real problems often happens very
slowly, with lots of practice along the way. We've learned a lot about
peer learning in this project, and the assessment above gives a serious
look at what we've accomplished, and at how much is left.
# researching.md
If you have a research bent, by this point, you may be asking yourself
questions like these: *How can we understand peer learning better?* *How
can we do research "the peeragogical way"?* *How do we combine research
and peer learning? *You may also be asking more technical methodological
and instrumentation-level questions: *Do we have a good way to measure
learning?* *Which activities and interventions have the biggest payoff?*
This chapter summarizes qualitative research I did on PlanetMath.org,
using the pattern catalog, as part of my work for my PhD. In the course
of the study, I developed 3 new patterns. The first point to make is
that although this research was informal, it is nevertheless (at least
in my view) highly rigorous. This is because the pattern catalog is a
relatively stable, socially agreed upon object, though it is not fixed
for all time. We can use it to help identify "known" patterns, but we
can also extend it with new patterns -- assuming that we can make an
argument to explain why the new patterns are needed. The notion of
pattern-finding as a process related to, but distinct from abstraction
is described by Richard Gabriel, who emphasizes that the "patterns and
the social process for applying them are designed to produce organic
order through piecemeal growth" ([1], p. 31). We can use the
rigorous-but-informal notion of an expanding pattern catalog to help
address the high-level questions about peeragogical research mentioned
above. The three new patterns I present here are: Frontend and Backend,
Spanning Set, and Minimum Viable Project. These patterns are both an
"outcome" of research in a real peer learning context -- and also a
reflection on peeragogical research methods. Like the other peeragogy
patterns, they are tools you can use in your own work.
## Study design
The study was based on interviews with users of a new software system
that we deployed on PlanetMath.org. In the interviews, we covered a wide
range issues, ranging from basic issues of usability all the way to
"deep" issues about how people think about mathematics. In this project,
I was interested not only in how people collaborate to solve
mathematical problems, but how they think about "system level" issues.
The design I had in mind is depicted in the figures below. The key idea
is that patterns emerge as "paths in the grass", or "desire lines". The
idea that learning design has emergent features is not itself new; see
e.g. [2]. What's new here is a characterization of the key patterns for
*doing* emergent design in a peer learning context.
[](http://peeragogy.org/to-peeragogy/researching-peeragogy/peeragogyedu/)
Map of a virtual campus
[](http://peeragogy.org/to-peeragogy/researching-peeragogy/peeragogyedu-paths2/)
Peeragogy patterns as loci for "paths in the grass"
## Initial thematic analysis
Before describing the new patterns, I will briefly summarize the themes
I identified in the interviews. This can serve as an overview of the
current features and shortcomings of PlanetMath system for people who
are not familiar with it.
- **"Necessary but not sufficient".** Users identified a range of
essential features, like a critical mass of other users to talk to.
- **"Nice to have".** It was also easy to identify a bunch of cool new
"dream" features.
- **Challenges with writing mathematics.** PlanetMath uses LaTeX,
which isn't entirely easy to learn (however, we could adapt the
software to help new users get started).
- **Progressive problem solving.** The new PlanetMath contains
problems and solutions, but no easy way to talk about conjectures.
Users would like a better way to share and discuss work-in-progress.
- **Personal history, social constructivism.** Better features for
tracking and, where appropriate, sharing, personal history would
help users make sense of what's happening in the site.
- **Regulating learning in a social/mediated context.** Different
users would look for different things to keep them on track (e.g.
expert guidance, or a due "sense of urgency" in feedback from
peers).
- **Comparison with roles in other contexts.** Many users expect a
"service delivery" style that is not entirely consistent with the
"open" production model used in a free/open, volunteer-driven
project. We need to work more on responsiveness in every aspect of
the project (keeping in mind that most participants are volunteers).
- **Concreteness as a criterion of quality.** "Knowing what you can
do," both with the software and with the content, is important. On
the content level, pictures help.
- **Personalization and localization.** The system has a practically
unlimited potential for personalization, although many basic
personalized interaction modes have not been built yet.
## Pattern analysis
At the next level of analysis, the themes extracted above were further
analysed in relationship to the peeragogy pattern catalog.
### Frontend and Backend
**Definition**: In order to design a collaborative system, you want to
bring in enough messiness to let new and unexpected features emerge, and
you want to facilitate meaningful engagement at every level -- but you
also need to be aware of the user's experience, including requirements
related to simplicity. As an analogy, imagine a butcher shop. There are
reasons for leaving the butchery work to the pros. There's a similar
phenomenon, even with open source systems. The part of the system users
experience is often connected to a “backend” that they don't interact
with, at least not as much. The process of working with a system's
frontend is often relatively formal (following specific straightforward
rules) whereas the process of working with the backend may be very
informal.
**Problem**: The idea of Frontend and Backend is related to the
“[Newcomer](http://peeragogy.org/practice/newcomer/)” pattern: typically
one will not expect the user of a system to know how to, or to be
motivated to, work with any of the backend features of a system until
they have mastered at many of the frontend features. “Users” tend to
expect a level of service provision. New users often require some
hand-holding.
**Solution**: As with the example of a butcher shop, the pattern of
frontend and backend lends itself to standard service provision and
transactional models of exchange. However, it can also be part of more
peer-driven activity. For example, sophisticated and committed users of
a community website can focus energy on supporting individual newcomers,
by helping them develop a high-quality sub-site on their topic of
interest. This helps newcomers stay within their comfort zone: having
supportive human involvement as part of their frontend experience makes
things go more smoothly. At the same time, through a process of
reflection on the part of the oldtimers, this effort can simultaneously
inform the development of backend features. In addition, the new content
can help to raise the profile of the site as a whole. The pattern is in
this way associated with[Focusing on a Specific
Project](http://peeragogy.org/practice/focusing-on-a-specific-project/)
(in this case, following the interests of the newcomers) and with
the[Roles](http://peeragogy.org/patterns/roles/) pattern, since it
requires a committed and knowledgeable mentor who can translate between
the user experience in the frontend and the system features in the
backend.
**Example**: David Cavallo wrote about an "engine culture" in rural
Thailand, in which structurally open systems made some of the "backend"
features of internal combustion engines a part of daily life. Cavallo
felt that people who were familiar with tinkering with engines tended to
be able to learn how to tinker with software, suggesting that there are
some common underlying informal reasoning skills.
**Challenges**: Mentoring newcomers while also working on system
features to support them better constitutes a major commitment. If this
work can be spread out among several volunteers -- or possibly paid
staff -- this could have some advantages. On the other hand, depending
on the nature of the process, providing a single point of contact for
the user may still be the most straightforward.
**What’s Next**: At PlanetMath, we have an "open engine", but not
necessarily an “open engine culture”. In addition to directly running
the pattern described here by focusing on individual users, we want to
build pathways for more user involvement in working with the software
system. This may involve its own significant outreach and teaching
efforts.
### Spanning Set
**Definition**: With a well-constructed information access system, you
may be able to get what you need without digging. If you do need to dig,
it is very good to get some indication about which direction to dig in.
At the level of content, this may be achieved by using high-level "topic
articles" as narrative map to the content. In general, the Spanning Set
may include people as well as less dynamic media objects. In a standard
course model, there is one central node, the teacher, who is responsible
for all teaching and course communication. In large courses, this model
is sometimes scaled up:
> **Anonymous study participant**: [E]veryone's allocated a course
> tutor, who might take on just a half-dozen students - so, they're not
> the overall person in charge of the course, by any means.
In general, a spanning set is comprised of a set of fundamental actions
and fundamental relationships between resources.
**Problem**: People need to know what can be done with a given resource,
and this isn't always obvious. Relying on a single knowledgeable guru
figure isn't always possible.
**Solution**: A spanning set of a system's features, categories, and
relations can be comprised of many different kinds of components: for
example, a "start menu" or pop-up window showing keyboard shortcuts that
shows what can be done with a given tool; a schedule of office hours so
that people know how to find help; and topic-level narrative guides to
content.
**Examples**: One social version of a Spanning Set is the classical
master/apprentice system, in which every apprentice is supervised by a
certified master. In the typical online Q&A context, these roles are
made distributed, and are better modeled by power laws than by formal
gradations. A "spanning set" of peer tutors could help shift the
exponent attached to the power law in massive courses. For instance, we
can imagine a given discussion group of 100 persons that is divided
according to the so-called[90/9/1
rule](http://www.wikipatterns.com/display/wikipatterns/90-9-1+Theory),
so that 90 lurk, 9 contribute a little, and 1 creates the content. This
is what one might observe, for example, in a classroom with a lecture
format. We could potentially shift this pcentage by breaking the group
up into smaller groups, so that each of the 9 contributors leads a
discussion section of 10 persons, at which point, chances are decent
that at least some of the former lurkers would be converted into
contributors.
**Challenges**: In practice, principles -- like the paragogy principles
or like the rules of tennis -- are not entirely sufficient for
understanding what to do or how things work. Principles and features may
be visible as part of a system's "frontend" -- but the actual spanning
set of relevant behaviors is emergent.
**What’s Next**: As a project with an encyclopedic component, PlanetMath
can be used to span and organize a significantly larger body of existing
material. We have come up with a high-level design for a “cross-index”
to the mathematics literature. We're working on a prototype for
Calculus.
### Minimum Viable Project
**Definition**: The Minimum Viable Product approach to software
development is about putting something out there to see if the customer
bites [5]. Another approach, building on the notion of a *Spanning Set*,
is to make it clear what people can do with what's there, and see how
they engage. A *Minimum Viable Project* is something someone can and
will engage with.
**Problem**: In general, it is an open question to know what will make a
given project engaging. We can point to some likely common features,
based on the features of viable systems in general [6] -- but typically,
the proof is in the pudding, so we need a methodology for trying things
out.
**Solution**: This “solution” is largely theoretical -- taking a
project-oriented view on everything, proposing to understand actions and
artifacts as being embedded within projects, modeling projects in terms
of informal user experience and formal system features (see *Frontend
and Backend*). Where possible, project updates can be modeled with a
language of fundamental actions (see *Spanning Set*). We make the
philosophical claim that projects themselves model their outcomes to
some degree of fidelity -- and that they are made viable by features
that connect to the motivations and ambitions of potential participants.
The practical side of the proposed solution is to build systems that can
express all of these aspects of projects, and study what works.
**Challenges**: It's not clear if a unified view of this sort will be
broadly useful. The features that make a project in one domain viable
(e.g. basketball) may have little to do with the features that make
another project in another domain viable.
**What’s Next**: As we mentioned in the *Frontend and Backend* pattern,
one way to strengthen the PlanetMath project as a whole would be to
focus on support for individual projects. The front page of the website
could be redesigned so that the top-level view of the site is project
focused. Thus, instead of collecting all of the posts from across the
site - or even all of the threads from across the site - the front page
could collect succinct summary information on recently active projects,
and list the number of active posts in each, after the model of Slashdot
stories or StackExchange questions. For instance, each Mathematics
Subject Classification could be designated as a "sub-project", but there
could be many other cross-cutting or smaller-scale projects.
## Summary
This chapter has used the approach suggested by Figure 2 to expand the
peeragogy pattern language. It shows that the peeragogy pattern language
provides a "meta-model" that can be used to develop emergent order
relative to given boundary conditions. As new structure forms, this
becomes part of the boundary conditions for future iterations. This
method is a suitable form for a theory of peer learning and peer
production in project-based and cross-project collaborations - a tool
for conviviality in the sense of Ivan Illich. In other words, we're all
in the same boat. The things that peer learners need in order to learn
stuff in a peer produced setting are exactly the same things that
designers and system builders need, too. And one concrete way to assess
our collective learning is in terms of the growth and refinement of our
pattern catalog.
**Frontend and Backend** Principles and features
**Minimum Viable Project** A Specific Project, Roadmap, Heartbeat,
Divide, Use or Make
**Spanning Set** Paths in the grass
Peeragogical emergent design: a tool for conviviality
## References
1. Gabriel, R. (1996). *Patterns of Software*. Oxford University Press
New York.
2. Luckin, R. (2010). *Re-designing learning contexts: technology-rich,
learner-centred ecologies*. Routledge.
3. Zimmerman, B. J. & Campillo, M. (2003). Motivating self-regulated
problem solvers. In J. Davidson & R. Sternberg (Eds.), The
psychology of problem solving (pp. 233-262). Cambridge University
Press New York, NY.
4. Cavallo, D. P. (2000). *Technological Fluency and the Art of
Motorcycle Maintenance: Emergent design of learning environments*
(Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
5. Ries, E. (2011). *The Lean Startup: How today's entrepreneurs use
continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses*.
Crown Pub.
6. Stafford Beer (1981). *Brain of the firm: the managerial cybernetics
of organization*. J. Wiley
# technologies.md
Author*:* Gigi Johnson
**It is tempting to bring a list of technologies out as a glorious
cookbook.** We need a 1/2 cup of group writing tools, 2 tsp. of social
network elements, a thick slice of social bookmarking, and some sugar,
then put it in the oven for 1 hour for 350 degrees.
We have created a broad features/functions list for Handbook readers to
reflect upon and consider. The joy of this list is that you can consider
alternatives for the way you communicate and work while you are planning
the project, or can add in new elements to solve communications gaps or
create new tools.
However, too many tools spoil the broth. In the writing of this
Handbook, we found that out firsthand. We spent a lot of marvelous
energy exploring different tools to collaborate, curate information, do
research, tag resources, and adjudicate among all of our points of view.
In looking at groups working with the various MOOCs, as another example,
different groups of students often camp in different social media
technologies to work.
In large courses, students often have to be pushed into various social
media tools to "co-create" with great protest and lots of inertia. And
finally, co-learning groups often come from very different backgrounds,
ages, and stages of life, with very different tools embedded in their
current lives. Do we have time for three more tools in our busy days? Do
more tools help -- or do they interfere with our work?
In this section, we'll share with you a few issues:
- What technologies are most useful in peer learning? What do we use
them for? What features or functions help our co-learning process?
- How do we decide (a) as a group and (b) for the group on what tools
we can use? Do we decide upfront, or grow as we go?
- How do we coach and scaffold each other on use of tools?
- How much do the tool choices impact the actual outcome of our
learning project?
- What are the different roles that co-learners can take in
co-teaching and co-coaching the technology affordances/assumptions
in the project to make others' lives easier?
Keep in mind -- your needs for tools, plus how the way the group uses
them, will change as the co-learning project moves along. Technologies
themselves tend to change rapidly. Are you willing to change tools
during the project as your needs and users change, or do you plan to use
a given tool set from the beginning to the end of your project?
## Features and Considerations
We will begin below with a discussions of "features" and initial
considerations, and then move to a broader "Choose Your Own
Adventure"-style matrix of features leading to a wide variety of
collaboration-based technology tools online.
### Technologies and Features
As we will share in the extensive list below, there are abundant tools
now available -- both for free and for pay -- to bring great features to
our co-learning endeavors. It is tempting to grab a group of fancy tools
and bring the group into a fairly complex tool environment to find the
perfect combination of resources. The challenge: adult learners seek
both comfort and context in our lives [1], [2]. In choosing tool
"brands", we can ignore the features themselves and what we need as
parts of the puzzle for learning. We also can have anxiety about our
self-beliefs around computers and technology, which in turn can limit
our abilities [3].
Before we get to brands and choices, it helps to ask a few questions
about the learning goals and environments:
- What do we need as features, and at what stage of the learning
process?
- What are we already comfortable with, individually and as a group?
- Do we want to stay with comfortable existing tools, or do we want to
stretch, or both?
- What types of learners do we have in this group? Technologically
advanced? Comfortable with basics?
- Do we want to invest the time to bring the whole group up to speed
on tools? Do all the group members agree on this? Do we want to risk
alienating members by making them invest time in new resources?
- We know that our use will migrate and adapt. Do we want to plan for
adaptation? Observe it? Learn from it? Make that change intentional
as we go?
Researchers over the years have heavily examined these questions of
human, technology, and task fit in many arenas. [Human-Computer
Interaction](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-Computer_Interaction)
researchers have looked at "fit" and "adaptive behavior," as well as how
the tools can affect how the problem is presented by Te'eni [4].
Creativity support tools [5] have a whole line of design research, as
has the field of [Computer-Supported Collaborative Work Systems
(CSCW)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-supported_cooperative_work).
For co-learners and designers interested in the abundance in this space,
we've added some additional links below. We here will make this a bit
easier. For your co-learning environment, you may want to do one or two
exercises in your decision planning:
What *features do you need*? Do you need collaboration? Graphic models?
Places to work at the same time (synchronous)? Between meetings
(asynchronous)? What are the group members *already using* as their
personal learning platforms? It also makes sense to do an inventory
about what the group already has as their learning platforms. I'm doing
that with another learning group right now. People are much more
comfortable -- as we also have found in our co-creation of this Handbook
-- creating and co-learning in tools with which they already are
comfortable. Members can be co-teachers to each other -- as we have have
-- in new platforms. What *type of tools*, based on the features that we
need, shall we start out with? Resnick *at al.* [6] looked at tools
having:
- Low thresholds (easy to get people started)
- Wide walls (able to bring in lots of different situations and uses)
and
- High ceilings (able to do complex tasks as the users and uses adapt
and grow).
What are important features needed for co-creation and *working
together*? In other pages above, we talk abundantly about roles and
co-learning challenges. These issues also are not new; Dourish &
Bellottii [7] for example, shared long-standing issues in
computer-supportive collaborative work online about how we are aware of
the information from others, passive vs. active generation of
information about collaborators, etc. These challenges used to be
"solved" by software designers in individual tools. Now that tools are
open, abundant, and diverse, groups embrace these same challenges when
choosing between online resources for co-learning.
### Useful Uses and fancy Features of Technological Tools
From here, we will help you think about what might be possible, linking
to features and solution ideas.
We start with ways to ask the key questions: What do you want to do and
why? We will start with features organized around several different
axes:
1. Time/Place
2. Stages of Activities and Tasks
3. Skill Building/Bloom's Taxonomy
4. Use Cases, and
5. Learning Functions.
Each will link to pages that will prompt you with features,
functionality, and technology tool ideas.
### Time/Place
We can further break down tools into whether they create or distribute,
or whether we can work simultaneously (synchronous) or at our own times
(ascynchronous). To make elements of time and place more visual, Baecker
[8] created a CSCW Matrix, bringing together time and place functions
and needs. Some tools are synchronous, such as Google+ Hangouts,
Blackboard Collaborate, and Adobe Connect, while others let us work
asynchronously, such as wikis and forums. Google Docs can work be used
both ways. We seem to be considering here mostly tools good for group
work, but not for solo, while many others are much easier solo or in
smaller groups.
****Same Time (Synchronous)****
**Different Time (Asyncronous)**
**Same Place (Co-located)**
**Face-to Face**: Display-focused (e.g., Smartboards)
**Continuous Task**: Groupware, project management
**Different Place (Remote)**
**Remote Interaction**: Videoconference, IM, Chat, Virtual Worlds
**Communication & Coordination**: Email, bulletin boards, Wikis, blog,
workflow tools
Some tools are synchronous, such as Google+ Hangouts, Blackboard
Collaborate, and Adobe Connect, while others let us work asynchronously,
such as wikis, forums, and Google Docs. We seem to be considering here
mostly tools good for group work, but not for solo, while many others
are much easier solo or in smaller groups.
### Stages of Activities and Tasks
Ben Shneiderman [5] has simplified the abundant models in this area
(e.g., Couger and Cave) with a clear model of 4 general activities and 8
tasks in creation for individuals, which we can lean on as another
framework for co-creation in co-learning.
## Collect
## Relate
## Create
## Distribute
Searching Visualizing
Consulting Others
Thinking Exploring Composing Reviewing
Disseminating
Tools and functions won't be clear cut between areas. For example, some
tools are more focused on being generative, or for creating content.
Wikis, Etherpad, Google docs, and others usually have a commenting/talk
page element, yet generating content is the primary goal and
discursive/consultative functions are in service of that. Some tools are
discursive, or focused on working together for the creative element of
"relating" above -- Blackboard Collaborate, the social media class room
forums, etc.
### Skill Building (Cognitive, a la Bloom's Taxonomy, see below)
Given that we are exploring learning, we can look to Bloom's Taxonomy
(revised, see [9]) for guidance as to how we can look at knowledge
support. Starting at the bottom, we have:
- Remembering, as a base;
- Understanding,
- Applying,
- Analyzing,
- Evaluating, and then, at the top,
- Creating.
We could put "search" in the Remembering category above. Others contest
that Search, done well, embraces most of the Bloom's elements above.
Samantha Penney has created a [Bloom's Digital Taxonomy
Pyramid](http://www.usi.edu/distance/bdt.htm) infographic, describing
tools for learning, which you may want to check out.
### Use Cases (I want to....)
Technologies can be outlined according to the need they serve or use
case they fulfill. Examples: If we need to 'curate', Pearl Trees is an
option. To 'publish' or 'create', we can look to a wiki or wordpress.
Other choices might be great in order to 'collaborate', etc.
One challenge is that tools are not that simple. As we look more closely
at the technologies today, we need to reach more broadly to add multiple
tags to them. For example Twitter can be used for "Convening a group,"
for "micro-blogging," for "research," etc.
- Collaborate with a Group
- Create Community
- Curate Information (select content, contextualize, and share it)
- Research
- Publish Information
- Create Learning Activities
- Make Something
These plans get more complex, as you are making a group of decisions
about tool functionality in order to choose what combination works for
use cases. It may be most useful to use a concept map (a tech tool) to
think about the needs and combinations that you would bring together to
achieve each Use Case or Learning Module.
### Technology Features/Functions
We have not made this easy! There are lots of moving elements and
options here, none of them right for everything, and some of them
fabulous for specific functions and needs. Some have the low thresholds
but may not be broad in scope. Some are broad for many uses; others are
specific task-oriented tools. That is some of the charm and frustration.
Weaving all of the above together, we have brought together a shared
taxonomy for us to discuss and think about co-learning technology
features and functions, which we present as an appendix below. This
connects various technology features within an expanded version of Ben
Shneiderman's creativity support tools framework. We've created this
linked toolset with multiple tags, hopefully making it easier for you to
evaluate which tool suits best the necessities of the group. Please
consider this a starting point for your own connected exploration.
## Appendix: Features and Functions
Weaving all of these frameworks together, we have brought together a
shared taxonomy for us to discuss and think about co-learning technology
features and functions. We have connected various technology features
with an expanded version of Ben Shneiderman's creativity support tools
framework for the linked resource guide. For convenience and to help
keep it up to date, we're publishing this resource [on Google
Docs](http://goo.gl/H02fMA). We present an overview below.
## Activities & Tasks
## Features/Functions
**Planning/Designing**
- Communicating
- Deciding and Creating Alternatives
- Convening a group
- Planning a course/structure (assembling a syllabus, designing a
learning activity)
- Designing self-assessment (group and individual)
- Setting individual and group goals
- Brainstorming
- Visualizing
**Collect/Share**
- Searching
- Visualizing
- Search
- Social Bookmarking
- Creating/Finding Taxonomies (shared keywords, domain-based keywords)
- Programming Toolsets
- Collaborative reading
- Collaborative note-taking
- Curation Tools
- Gathering information (e.g., capturing audio, video, text)
- Surveys and Questionnaires
**Relate**
- Consulting Others from the Outside
- Qualitative research
- Quantitative research
**Communication**
- Connecting with Others in the Group
- Project Planning - Scheduling
- Voice/Video Conferencing Services
- Group Email / Forum Messaging Services
- File Sharing Service (cloud based)
- Screen Capturing and Screen Casting
- Presentation and Document Sharing
**Co-Create**
- Thinking (Free Association)
- Exploring
- Composing
- Reviewing
- Learning Management Systems
- Document Collaboration and Editing
- Visualizing Information for analysis and synthesis (concept maps,
data visualization)
**Distribute/Action**
- Disseminating
- Publishing Platforms (traditional publishing, social media/sharing
distribution)
- Visualization (for presentation)
**Feedback**
- Listening
- Social Monitoring
### References
1. Schein, E. H. (1997). *Organizational learning as cognitive
re-definition: Coercive persuasion revisited*. Cambridge, MA:
Society for Organizational Learning.
2. Schein, E. H. (2004). *Organizational culture and leadership.* San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
3. Compeau, D.R., & Higgins, C.A. (1995, June). Computer Self-Efficacy:
Development of a Measure and Initial Test. *MIS Quarterly, 19*, (2),
189-211.
4. Te'eni, D. (2006). Designs that fit: An overview of fit
conceptualizations in HCI. In *Human-Computer Interaction and
Management Information Systems: Foundations*, edited by P. Zhang and
D. Galletta, pp. 205-221, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
5. Shneiderman, B. (2002). Creativity support tools. *Commun. ACM* 45,
10 (October 2002), 116-120.
6. Resnick, M, Myers, B, Nakakoji, K, Shneiderman, B, Pausch, R,
Selker, T. & Eisenberg, M (2005). [Design principles for tools to
support creative thinking](http://repository.cmu.edu/isr/816).
*Institute for Software Research.* Paper 816.
7. Dourish, P. & Bellotti, V. (1992). Awareness and coordination in
shared workspaces. In *Proceedings of the 1992 ACM conference on
Computer-supported cooperative work* (CSCW '92). ACM, New York, NY,
USA, 107-114.
8. Baecker, R.,
[Grudin](http://www.interaction-design.org/references/authors/jonathan_grudin.html "Jonathan Grudin: Publications, homepage, mini-biography etc;"),
J.,
[Buxton](http://www.interaction-design.org/references/authors/william_buxton.html "William Buxton: Publications, homepage, mini-biography etc;"),
W., &
[Greenberg](http://www.interaction-design.org/references/authors/saul_greenberg.html "Saul Greenberg: Publications, homepage, mini-biography etc;"),
& (eds.) (1995): *Readings in Human-Computer Interaction: Toward the
Year 2000.* New York, NY: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers
9. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). *A taxonomy for
learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of
educational objectives: Complete edition*. New York, NY: Longman.
# forums.md
Author: Howard Rheingold **Summary**:
Forums are web-based communication media that enable groups of people to
conduct organized multimedia discussions about multiple topics over a
period of time. Selecting the right kind of platform for forum
conversations is important, as is know-how about facilitating ongoing
conversations online. Forums can be a powerful co-learning tool for
people who may have never met face-to-face and could be located in
different time zones, but who share an interest in co-learning.
Asynchronous media such as forums (or simple email distribution lists or
[Google Docs](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVFbqHhkb-k)) can be an
important part of a co-learning toolkit that also include synchronous
media from face-to-face meetups to [Google+
Hangouts](http://www.google.com/+/learnmore/hangouts/) or webinars via
[Blackboard
Collaborate](http://www.blackboard.com/Platforms/Collaborate/Products/Blackboard-Collaborate.aspx),
[Adobe Connect](http://www.adobe.com/products/adobeconnect.html), or the
open source webconferencing tool, [Big Blue
Button](http://www.bigbluebutton.org/)).
### What is a forum and why should a group use it?
A forum, also known as a message board,
[bbs](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletin_board_system), threaded
discussion, or conferencing system, affords asynchronous, many-to-many,
multimedia discussions for large groups of people over a period of time.
That means that people can read and write their parts of the discussion
on their own schedule, that everyone in a group can communicate with
everyone else, and that graphics, sounds, and videos can accompany text.
The best forums index discussion threads by topic, title, tag,
date,and/or author and also keep track of which threads and entries
(also known as posts) each logged-in participant has already read,
making it possible to click on a "show me all the new posts and threads"
link each time a participant logs in. This particular form of
conversational medium meets the need for organizing conversations after
they reach a certain level of complexity. For example, if twenty people
want to discuss five subjects over ten days, and each person makes one
comment on each subject every day, that makes for one thousand messages
in each participant's mailbox. On email lists, when the conversation
drifts from the original topic, the subject line usually does not
change, so it makes it difficult to find particular discussions later.
Forums make possible a new kind of group discussion that unfolds over
days, weeks, and months, in a variety of media. While blogs are
primarily about individual voice, forms can be seen as the voice of a
group. The best forum threads are not serial collections of individual
essays, but constitute a kind of discourse where the discussion becomes
more than the sum of its individual posts. Each participant takes into
account what others have said, builds on previous posts, poses and
answers questions of others, summarize, distill, and concludes.
This short piece on [guidelines for discussion board
writing](http://www.lehigh.edu/~indiscus/doc_guidelines.html)is useful,
as is this short piece on [shaping a culture of
conversation](http://academiccommons.org/commons/essay/shaping-culture-conversation).
Lively forums with substantial conversation can glue together the
disparate parts of a peeragogy group -- the sometimes geographically
dispersed participants, texts, synchronous chats, blogs, wikis and other
co-learning tools and elements. Forum conversations are an art in
themselves and forums for learning communities are a specific genre.
Reading the resources linked here -- and communicating about them -- can
help any peeragogy group get its forums off to a good start
### How to start fruitful forum discussions:
In most contexts, starting a forum with a topic thread for introductions
tends to foster the sense of community needed for valuable
conversations. [This short piece on how to host good conversations
online](http://www.rheingold.com/texts/artonlinehost.html)offers general
advice. In addition to introductions, it is often helpful to start a
topic thread about which new topic threads to create -- when everybody
has the power to start a new thread and not everybody knows how forums
work, a confusing duplication of conversations can result, so it can be
most useful to make the selection of new topic threads a group exercise.
A topic thread to ask questions about how to use the forum can prevent a
proliferation of duplicate questions. It helps to begin a forum with a
few topic threads that invite participation in the context of the
group's shared interest "Who is your favorite photographer" for a group
of photographers, for example, or "evolution of human intelligence" for
a group interested in evolution and/or human intelligence. Ask
questions, invite candidate responses to a challenge, make a provocative
statement and ask for reactions.
Whether or not you use a rubric for assessing individual participants'
forum posts, this guide to [how forum posts are
evaluated](http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/ATC/Collaboratory/Idea/boards.html)
by one professor can help convey the difference between a good and a
poor forum conversation:
*4 Points - *The posting(s) integrates multiple viewpoints and weaves
both class readings and other participants' postings into their
discussion of the subject.
*3 Points - *The posting(s) builds upon the ideas of another participant
or two, and digs deeper into the question(s) posed by the instructor.
*2 Points - *A single posting that does not interact with or incorporate
the ideas of other participants' comments.
*1 Point - *A simple "me too" comment that neither expands the
conversation nor demonstrates any degree of reflection by the student.
*0 Points - *No comment.
### Selecting a forum platform
- You don't want a forum for discussions among two or three people;
you do want a forum for discussions among half a dozen or five
thousand people.
- You don't want a forum for exchanges of short duration (an hour, a
day or two) among any number of people; you do want a forum for
ongoing conversations that can continue for months.
- You don't want a forum if blogs with comment threads will do --
blogs with comments afford group discourse, but is not easily
indexed and discourse gets complicated with more than a dozen or so
bloggers and commenters.
If you do want to select a platform for forum discourse, you will want
to decide whether you have the technical expertise available to install
the software on your own server or whether you want to look for a hosted
solution. Cost is an issue.
Fortunately, an online forum maven by the name of [David
Wooley](http://thinkofit.com/whoweare.htm) has been keeping an
up-to-date list of available software and services for more than a
decade:
- [Forum Software for the
Web](http://thinkofit.com/webconf/forumsoft.htm)
- [Forum and Message Board Hosting
Services](http://thinkofit.com/webconf/hostsites.htm)
These [2003 suggestions on how to choose a
forum](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D606u7SfVD3p7xH0lbf2mOO1hIdX97r7kVe753hSYeE/edit)
by Howard Rheingold can be helpful. If blogs with comments afford a kind
of networked individualistic discourse, and video conferencing emulates
face-to-face meeting, forums can be seen as a channel for expression of
the group voice. When people react to and build on each other's
comments, they can learn to act as a collective intelligence as well as
a collection of individuals who are communicating in order to learn.
# wiki.md
*Author:* Régis Barondeau
In the context of P2P-learning, a wiki platform can be a useful and
powerful collaboration tool. This section will help you understand what
a wiki is and what it is not, why you should use it, how to choose a
wiki engine and finally how you could use it in a P2P context. Some
examples of P2P-learning projects run on wikis will help you see the
potential of the tool.
## What is a wiki?
For [Ward Cunningham](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_cunningham)
father of the wiki, "a wiki is a freely expandable collection of
interlinked Web 'pages', a hypertext system for storing and modifying
information - a database, where each page is easily editable by any user
with a forms-capable Web browser client" [1].
According to Wikipedia : "a wiki is a website whose users can add,
modify, or delete its content via a web browser using a simplified
markup language or a rich-text editor" [2].
You can watch this CommonCraft video [wiki in plain
english](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dnL00TdmLY "wiki in plain english")
to better understand what a wiki is.
## What differentiates the wiki from other co-editing tools?
The previous definitions show that a wiki is a "website," in other words
it is composed of pages that are connected together by hyperlinks.In
additiont every authorized person (not all wikis are totally open like
Wikipedia) can edit the pages from a web browser, reducing time and
space constrains. In case one saves a mistake or for any other reason
would like to go back to a previous version, a feature called "history"
allows users to see previous versions and to roll back any of them. This
version history allows also to compare versions avoiding the cluttered
of the "commentaries rainbow" we are used too in popular Word
processors. For example if you work on a wiki page, and come back later
on, you will be able to catch up by comparing your last version with the
lastest version of someone else.
Tools like [Google Docs](https://docs.google.com/) or
[Etherpad](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etherpad) are design to enable
co-editing on a single document. This can be seen as a "wiki way" of
working on a document as it is web based and includes versioning. But it
is not a wiki because a single document is not a website. Those tools
offer realtime collaboration which wikis do not and are so far easier to
use for beginners as they work in
[WYSIWYG](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WYSIWYG) mode, which many wikis
do not support. However, the advanced features [wiki markup
language](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki_syntax) make it a more
powerful tool. In summary, tools like Googles Docs or Etherpad are a
great way to quickly collaborate (synchronously, asynchronously, or a
mixture of both) on a single document for free, with a low barrier to
entry and no technical support. (Note that Etherpad does have a
"wiki-links" plugin that can allow it to be used in a more wiki-like
way; [Hackpad](https://hackpad.com/) is another real-time editing tool
that prominently features linking -- and it claims to be "the best wiki
ever".)
Using a real wiki engine is more interesting for bigger projects and
allows a huge number of users to collaborate on the same platform. A
wiki reduces the coordination complication as e-mails exchanges are no
more needed to coordinate a project. On the other hand it can help us
deal with complexity ([3], [4]) especially if you put basic simple rules
in place like the Wikipedia's [neutral point of
view](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV) to allow every participant to
share her or his ideas.
Going back to the continuum we talked about before, some tools like
Moodle, SharePoint, WordPress, Drupal or others have build in wiki
features. Those features can be good but will typically not be as good
for wiki-building purposes as a well-developed special-purpose wiki
engine. In other words, those tools main focus is not the wiki, which is
only a secondary feature. When you choose a real wiki engine like
[Mediawiki](http://www.mediawiki.org/), [Tiki](http://www.tiki.org/),
[Foswiki](http://foswiki.org/), etc., the wiki will be your platform,
not a feature of it. For example if you start a wiki activity in a
Moodle course, this wiki will be only visible to a specific group of
students and searchable only to those students. On the other hand if
your learning platform is a wiki, the whole platform will be searchable
to all members regarding their permissions. We are not saying here that
a wiki is better than other tools but if you need a wiki engine to
address your needs you may consider going with a strong wiki engine
rather than a "micro-wiki" engine embedded in an other tool.
## Why use a wiki?
Those are the main reasons you should consider a wiki for your peer
learning projects :
- To reduce coordination complication by having a central and always
up to date place to store your content. You will reduce e-mail usage
drasticly, and have access to your content from everywhere using any
operating system.
- To keep track of the evolution of your project and be able to view
or roll back any previous version of a wiki page using the history
feature.
- To make links between wiki pages to connect ideas and people but
also make links to external URL's. This last possibility is very
handy to cite your sources.
- To deal with complexity. As a wiki allows anyone to contribute, if
you set some easy rules like Wikipedia's NPOV (Neutral Point of
View), you will be able to catch more complexity as you will allow
everyone to express his or her opinion. Wikis also integrate a forum
or comment feature that will help you solve editing conflicts.
- To deal with work in progress. A wiki is a great tool to capture an
on going work.
- To support transparency by letting every members of the community
see what others are doing.
- To support a network structure as a wiki is by essence an horizontal
tool.
Using a hyperlinks you can...
> **Gérard Ayache**: "...jump by a single click from a network node to
> the other, from a computer to an other, from one information to the
> other, from one univers to the other, from one brain to the other."
> (Translated from [5].)
## How to choose a wiki engine?
You will find more than a hundred different wiki engines.
The first main distinction is between open source ones that are free to
download and commercial ones you will have to pay for. You will find
powerful engines on both sides open source and commercial. Sometimes the
open source ones look less polished at first sight but are backed by a
strong community and offer a lot of customization possibilities. The
commercial are sold like a package, they are nicely presented but often
they offer less customization on the user side and additional feature or
custom made tools will cost you an extra fee.
The second distinction that we can make is between wiki farms and
self-hosted wikis. The [wiki
farm](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki_hosting_service) is a hosting
service you can find for both open source or commercial wikis. The goal
of those farms is to simplify the hosting of individual wikis. If you
don't want to choose a wiki farm hosting, you will have to host the wiki
on your own server. This will give you more latitude and data privacy
but will require more technical skills and cost you maintenance fees.
The [Wikimatrix](http://www.wikimatrix.org/) web site will help you
choose the best wiki for your needs. It allows you to compare the
features of more than a hundred wiki engines.
[Here](http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TopTenWikiEngines) is the top ten list of
the best wiki engines by Ward Cunningham.
## How can a wiki be useful in a peeragogy project?
A wiki is a good tool collaborative projects and a specially suited for
work in progress as you can easily track changes using the history,
compare those version and if necessary roll back a previous versions. In
other words, nothing gets lost.
Here are some ideas about how to use a wiki in a peeragogy project :
- **Use a wiki as your learning platform**. It can also support
[Massive Open Online Courses
(MOOCs)](http://socialmediaclassroom.com/host/peeragogy/wiki/connectivism-practice-how-organize-a-mooc).
A wiki will help you organize your [learning
context](http://socialmediaclassroom.com/host/peeragogy/wiki/organizing-a-learning-context).
You can choose to give access to your wiki only to the project
participants or open it to the public like
[Wikipedia](http://www.wikipedia.org/). Using hyperlinking, you will
operationalize the theory of
[connectivism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectivism) by
connecting nodes together. As a learning platform wikis are powerful
because you can easily see what others are doing, share with them,
get inspired, merge ideas or link to ideas. In other words, it
creates emulation between learners. For additional ressources about
wiki in education follow this Diigo
[link](http://www.diigo.com/user/regisb/wiki%20education).
- **Manage your peeragogy project**. A wiki is an excellent tool for
project collaboration. Above all, the wiki can be a central place
for peer learners to write or link to content. Even if you use
several technologies to run your project as we did to write this
handbook, at the end of the day, all the content can be centralized
on a wiki using direct writing on wiki pages or hyperlinks. This way
members can access the content from anywhere and from any device
connected to the internet using any platform or application and they
will always see the most recent version while being able to browse
through the versions history to understand what has changed since
their last visit.
- **Publish your project**. As a wiki is a website you can easily use
it to show your work to the world. Regarding web design, don't
forget that a wiki can look way better than a Wikipedia page if you
customize it
## Examples of peeragogy projects run on wikis
[Appropedia](http://www.appropedia.org/Welcome_to_Appropedia) is a wiki
site for collaborative solutions in
[sustainability](http://www.appropedia.org/Sustainability "Sustainability"),
[poverty](http://www.appropedia.org/Poverty "Poverty") reduction and
[international
development](http://www.appropedia.org/International_development "International development")
through the use of sound
[principles](http://www.appropedia.org/Principles "Principles") and
[appropriate
technology](http://www.appropedia.org/Appropriate_technology "Appropriate technology")
and the sharing of wisdom and
[project](http://www.appropedia.org/Project "Project") information. The
site is open to stakeholders to find, create and improve scalable and
adaptable solutions.
[Teahouse](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse) is a
peeragogy project run on a wiki that gives newcomers a place to learn
about Wikipedia culture and get feedback from experienced Wikipedians.
## What are the best practices when using a wiki?
- **Cofacilitation** -- help each other learn, help each other
administer
- **Self-election** -- enable people to choose what they want to work
on, at their own pace, in their own way
- **Communication** -- use comment threads and talk pages to discuss
wiki changes
- **Documenting changes** -- most wikis enable editors to write very
brief descriptions of their edits
- **Rules** -- keep rules at a minimum level to avoid chaos without
constraining creativity
- **Fun** -- make it fun for people to contribute
## References
1. Leuf, Bo, et Ward, Cunningham. 2001. The Wiki way : quick
collaboration on the Web. Boston: Addison-Wesley, xxiii, 435 p. p.14
2. [Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki) on Wikipedia
3. Andrus, Calvin D. 2005. [Toward a complex adaptative intelligence
community - The wiki and the blog](http://ssrn.com/abstract=755904).
Studies in Intelligence. vol. 49, no 3. Online :
4. Barondeau, Régis. 2010. [La gestion de projet croise le
wiki](http://www.regisbarondeau.com/Chapitre+4:+Analyse+du+cas#Synth_se).
École des Sciences de la Gestion, Université du Québec à Montréal,
180 pp.
5. Ayache, Gérard. 2008. Homo sapiens 2.0 : introduction à une histoire
naturelle de l'hyperinformation. Paris: Milo, 284 p. p.179
# realtime.md
Author: [Howard
Rheingold](http://peeragogy.org/resources/meet-the-team/ "Meet the Team")
### Summary
Web services that enable broadband-connected learners to communicate in
real time via audio, video, slides, whiteboards, chat, and
screen-sharing enable learning groups to add some of the audio-visual
dimensions familiar from synchronous face-to-face communication to
otherwise asynchronous platforms such as forums, blogs, and wikis. This
article includes resources for finding and evaluating appropriate
for-free or for-fee platforms, tips on participative activities for
real-time meetings, and suggestions for blending real-time and
asynchronous media.
## Real-time meeting media
The *Peeragogy Handbook* was conceived and constructed by a group of
people on four continents who had not met and had not known about each
other before we began meeting online. The process involves asynchronous
media, including forums, wikis, social bookmarking groups, and
Wordpress, but it probably would never have cohered into a group capable
of collective action if it had not been for the real-time meetings where
we were able to see each other's faces, hear each other's voices, use a
whiteboard as an anonymous agenda-generator, exchange links in chat,
show each other examples through screen-sharing. Together, the
asynchronous and real-time media enabled us to begin to see ourselves as
an effective group. We used both real-time and asynchronous tools to
work out processes for creating, refining, and publishing the Handbook,
to divide labor, decide on platforms and processes, to collaboratively
compose and edit articles, and to design and add graphical and video
elements. In particular, we used the [Blackboard
Collaborate](http://www.blackboard.com/platforms/collaborate/overview.aspx)
platform, a web-service that enables up to 50 people at a time to meet
in a multimedia, recordable, meeting room for around $500/year. We've
experimented with other paid platforms, such as [Adobe
Connect](http://success.adobe.com/en/na/sem/products/connect/1109_6011_connect_webinars.html)
(about the same price as Collaborate), and when we meet in groups of ten
or less, we often use the free and recordable [Google+
Hangout](http://www.google.com/+/learnmore/hangouts/) service. Smaller
groups also use [Skype](http://www.skype.com) or free telephone
conferencing services. [Mumble](http://mumble.sourceforge.net/) is an
open source audio-only tool that is popular with gamers. We're watching
the development of [Big Blue Button](http://www.bigbluebutton.org/), a
free and open-source real-time meeting platform, as it develops the full
suite of tools that are currently only available for a fee. Dozens of
other free, ad-supported and/or freemium webconferencing systems such as
[Big Marker](http://www.bigmarker.com/about) and
[Dim-Dim](http://www.dimdim.com) can be found in lists like [Howard
Rheingold's](http://delicious.com/hrheingold/webconferencing) and [Robin
Good'](http://www.mindmeister.com/12213323/best-online-collaboration-tools-2012-robin-good-s-collaborative-map)s.
Free phone conferencing services provide another technological "lowest
common denominator": some provide a few extras like downloadable
recordings.
## Features of real-time meeting platforms
There are many free services for chat, screen-sharing, whiteboards, and
video conferencing, but combining all these components in separate panes
of the same screen (preferably) or as separate tabs of a browser can
have a powerful synchronizing and harmonizing effect on the group. The
features to look for in meeting platforms include:
**Audio and video**: Choose platforms that enable
voice-over-internet-protocol (VOIP) and easy ways for participants to
configure their microphones and speakers. Today's webcams, together with
adequate lighting and a broadband connection, enable a number of people
to be visible at the same time. In Blackboard Collaborate, the person
who is speaking at a given moment is visible in the largest video pane,
while other participants are available in smaller video windows. Audio
and video convey much more of a human dimension than text communications
alone. A group of people who have seen and heard each other online are
able to work together via asynchronous media such as forums and wikis
more effectively. Online face-to-face meetings are often the best way
for a group to argue constructively and decide on critical issues.
Forums and email are comparatively bad choices for distributed
decison-making.
**Slide pushing:** The best platforms will convert .ppt or .pdf files
for sequential display. With the addition of text chat, annotations to
slides, and the ability to "raise your hand" or interrupt with your
voice, an online lecture can be a more multidimensional experience than
even a highly discursive in-person lecture.
**Text chat:** As a backchannel, a means of quickly exchanging links to
relevant resources, a channel for collaborative note-taking, a way of
communicating with the lecturer and with other participants, text chat
adds a particularly useful dimension to real-time peeragogical meetings
-- especially when the division of labor is explicitly agreed upon in
advance. We've found that even in meetings that use the real-time
collaborative editor [Etherpad](http://etherpad.org) for collaborative
note taking, participants may gravitate toward the built-in chat box for
discussion.
**Screen sharing:** The ability of participants to show each other what
is on their screens becomes especially important in peer learning, where
we all have some things to show each other.
**Web tours:** An alternative to screen-sharing is the ability to
display the same web page(s) to all participants by entering URLs.
**Interactive whiteboards**: A shared space that enables participants to
enter text, drawings, shapes, colors, to move and resize media, and to
import graphic content -- especially if it allows anonymous actions --
can foster the feeling of participating in a collective intelligence.
Collaborative anonymous mind-mapping of the discussion is one technique
to try with whiteboards. The whiteboard can also be used to generate an
emergent agenda for an "un-meeting".
## Configuring Google+ Hangout - a free alternative for up to 10 people
For up to 10 people, each equipped with a webcam, microphone, and
broadband connection, [Google+
Hangout](http://lifehacker.com/5842191/google%2B-hangouts-adds-screen-sharing-google-docs-collaboration-and-more "Google+ Hangouts, a free option")
can provide high-quality audio-video conferencing. By enabling the
text-chat feature and adding Google Docs (text documents, presentations,
or spreadsheets), screensharing, and SketchUp (whiteboard), it is
possible to emulate most of what the commercial services offer. Adobe
Connect and Blackboard Collaborate currently have the user-interface
advantage of displaying chat, video, whiteboard/slides as resizable
panes on one screen; at present, the free Google services can provide a
powerful extension of the basic audio-video platform, but participants
have to shift between different tabs or windows in the browser. Note
that it is possible to [stream a Hangout and record it to
YouTube](http://www.google.com/+/learnmore/hangouts/onair.html), again
at no cost to the user. We've used this tool extensively in the
Peeragogy project.
## Suggestions for real-time meetings
In the nine online courses I have facilitated, the emphasis on
co-learning encouraged participants to suggest and shape active roles
during real-time meetings. By creating and taking on roles, and shifting
from role to role, participants engage in a kind of collective learning
about collective learning which can be as pleasurable as well as useful.
Typically we first brainstorm, then analyze, then organize and present
the knowledge that we discover, construct, and ultimately convey
together.
## Roles for participants in real-time meetings
- **Searchers:** search the web for references mentioned during the
session and other resources relevant to the discussion, and publish
the URLs in the text chat
- **Contextualizers:** add two or three sentences of contextual
description for each URL
- **Summarizers:** note main points made through text chat.
- **Lexicographers:** identify and collaboratively define words and
phrases on a wiki page.
- **Mappers:** keep track of top level and secondary level categories
and help the group mindmapping exercise at the end of the session.
- **Curators:** compile the summaries, links to the lexicon and
mindmaps, contextualized resources, on a single wiki page.
- **Emergent Agendas:** using the whiteboard for anonymous nomination
and preference polling for agenda items, with voice, video, and
text-chat channels for discussing nominations, a group can quickly
set its own agenda for the real-time session.
## The Paragogical Action Review
Charlie Danoff and Joe Corneli slightly modified the US Army's "After
Action Review" into a technique for evaluating peer learning as it
happens. The five steps in the "PAR" are:
1. Review what was supposed to happen
2. Establish what is happening
3. Determine what’s right and wrong with what we are doing
4. What did we learn or change?
5. What else should we change going forward?
Participants can run through these steps during live meetings to
reassess the medium, the readings, the group dynamics, or any other
choices that have learning relevance. The focus in the PAR is on change:
as such, it provides a simple way to help implement the "double loop
learning" described Chris Argris [1].
### Reference
1. Argyris, Chris. "[Teaching smart people how to
learn](http://pds8.egloos.com/pds/200805/20/87/chris_argyris_learning.pdf)."
Harvard Business Review, 69.3, 1991.
# get-involved.md
*This page is for people who want to help develop/improve this handbook.
*
*If you want to get involved, write to [Howard
Rheingold](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Rheingold) at
[howard@rheingold.com](mailto:howard@rheingold.com).*
*Illustrations by [Amanda Lyons](http://www.visualsforchange.com/).*
[](http://peeragogy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/welcome_color.gif)
## Hello and welcome!
The peeragogy project was kicked off around the time of [Howard
Rheingold’s](http://rheingold.com/) January 23, 2012 [Regents
Lecture](http://vimeo.com/35685124) at UC Berkeley on *Social Media and
Peer Learning: From Mediated Pedagogy to Peeragogy*. We have put
together a handbook about peer learning: you're reading it -- maybe on
[our website](peeragogy.org), or in your hammock with the beverage of
your choice and our [print on
demand](http://www.lulu.com/shop/howard-rheingold-and-peeragogyorg-editors/the-peeragogy-handbook/paperback/product-20607425.html)
paperback. Or maybe you grabbed our [free
PDF](http://peeragogy.net/peeragogy-handbook-v1-1.pdf) or some other
remixed version in some other format or flavor from some other place
(which would be
[cool](http://peeragogy.org/resources/license/ "License")!).
But: there’s still [more work to be
done](http://peeragogy.org/peeragogy-org-roadmap/ "Peeragogy.org Roadmap").
We created this page because you might be interested in getting involved
in improving the book or furthering the project in other ways. If so,
we’re happy to have you aboard!
What you do here is largely up to you. Asking questions is actually
extremely helpful: there's almost always someone in our [Google+
community](https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/107386162349686249470)
who would be happy to try to answer them, or refer you to someone else
who can. Or just poke around the public pages on peeragogy.org and leave
a comment or two. Better still, find an area where you feel
knowledgeable -- or are willing to learn -- and start writing (or
filming, dancing, drawing, building, etc.).
[](http://peeragogy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/what_to_do_color.gif)
The goal we have in mind for our book is for it be a useful guide to
peer learning! To achieve that goal we have in mind multiple
opportunities for peers to contribute. Here's our current "Top Ten"
list:
1. - Site: Peeragogy.org
- What happens: Maintain the "master" copy of the peeragogy
handbook, public new about the project
- Who's in charge: Peeragogy Editorial Board, Stephanie Schipper,
Howard Rheingold
- URL: [http://peeragogy.org](http://peeragogy.org)
- Status: Active
2. - Site: Google Docs
- What happens: Hive editing, working drafts to be delivered
elsewhere when they are finished or for final polishing
- Who's in charge: Everyone
- URL: [https://drive.google.com](https://drive.google.com)
- Status: Active
3. - Site: PIA Google+
- What happens: Random posts related to Peeragogy, quick
communications between members, news about events, hangouts, etc
- Who's in charge: Everyone
- URL: [http://goo.gl/4dRU92](http://goo.gl/4dRU92)
- Status: Active
4. - Site: +Peeragogy Handbook page
- What happens: Coordinating Hangouts on Air, G+ news updates
- Who's in charge: Charlotte Pierce
- URL:
[https://plus.google.com/+PeeragogyOrgHandbook/posts](https://plus.google.com/+PeeragogyOrgHandbook/posts)
- Status: Active
5. - Site: Peeragogy YouTube Channel
- What happens: videos posted here
- Who's in charge: Charlotte Pierce
- URL:
[http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAQ5TpUxKrsVfWtIHMaDh5A/](http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAQ5TpUxKrsVfWtIHMaDh5A/about)
- Status: Active
6. - Site: Commons Abundance Network
- What happens: Public facing landing page for the accelerator,
networking with other commons-oriented groups
- Who's in charge: Helene Finidori
- URL:
[http://commonsabundance.net/groups/peeragogy/](http://commonsabundance.net/groups/peeragogy/)
- Status: Active
7. - Site: PPT Google+
- What happens: Meta-level coordination for the project
- Who's in charge: Peeragogy Editorial Board
- URL: [http://goo.gl/AzxXQq](http://goo.gl/AzxXQq)
- Status: Active
8. - Site: Git.io/Handbook
- What happens: versioned storage of the LaTeX sources for the
print version of the handbook and other derived formats and
scripts
- Who's in charge: Joe Corneli
- URL: [http://git.io/Handbook](http://git.io/Handbook)
- Status: Low traffic
9. - Site: Peeragogy mailing list
- What happens: Meta-level coordination for the project, main
point of contact with the email-o-sphere
- Who's in charge: Joe Corneli
- URL:
[https://groups.google.com/forum/\#!forum/peeragogy](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/peeragogy)
- Status: Low traffic
10. - Site: Paragogy.net
- What happens: Wiki editing if and when that makes sense, e.g.
for translations or large multi-part documents
- Who's in charge: Joe Corneli, Charlie Danoff, Fabrizio Terzi
- URL: [http://paragogy.net](http://paragogy.net)
- Status: Low traffic
It’s up to you. Instead of worrying too much about [the
rules](http://peeragogy.org/co-working/), or trying to master all of the
[tools we use](http://peeragogy.org/resources/technologies/) at all
once, you can just jump in by joining our conversations, and take
advantage of the digital memory of the forum to rewind the conversation
all the way to the beginning (if you want to go that far), listen in for
a little bit if you want to, and jump in whenever you're ready. There
are always lots of things to do (including many that no one here has
thought of yet). We won’t know what you're up to until you speak up. You
can have a look at the outstanding tasks and teams that are listed on
[this Google
Doc](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_2I-z-Pt5NUKk-fpy4jsqxFeXbWS4ao4sIhkxCcRVeI/edit#):
our
[roadmap](http://peeragogy.org/peeragogy-org-roadmap/ "Peeragogy.org Roadmap")
is a useful shared resource too. You can add to these at any time.
We regularly use Google+, Google Hangouts, forums, and email to
communicate asynchronously and pretty much continuously. We also meet
irregularly as a group for synchronous audio-video sessions. Further
details about all these methods of communication can be found below.
In short: here's how it works:
[](http://peeragogy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/lots_going_on_color_1000.gif)
[](http://peeragogy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/where_to_go_color.gif)
# **[](http://peeragogy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/create_content.gif)**
**[](http://peeragogy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/communicate_color1.gif)**
**
[](http://peeragogy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/questions_1000.gif)**
## Questions?
If you have questions, that's good! Use Google+ or post a comment on
peeragogy.org, email the team energy center if you know who that is, or
email [howard@rheingold.com](mailto:howard@rheingold.com).
# action.md
We have been writing the missing manual for peer-produced peer learning
- the “Peeragogy Handbook” ([peeragogy.org](http://peeragogy.org/)).
Throughout the building of this work, we, ourselves peer learners in
this quest, have been mindful of these four questions:
1. *How does a motivated group of self-learners choose a subject or
skill to learn? *
2. *How can this group identify and select the best learning resources
about that topic? *
3. *How will these learners identify and select the appropriate
technology and communications tools and platforms to accomplish
their learning goal?*
4. *What does the group need to know about learning theory and practice
to put together a successful peer-learning program?*
It is clear to us that the techniques of peer production that have built
and continue to improve *Wikipedia* and GNU/Linux have yet to fully
demonstrate their power in education. We believe that the *Peeragogy
Handbook* can help change that by building a distributed community of
peer learners/educators, and a strongly vetted collection of best
practices. Our project complements others’ work on sites like
Wikiversity and P2PU, and builds upon understandings that have developed
informally in distributed communities of hobbyists and professionals, as
well as in (and beyond) the classrooms of generations of passionate
educators. Here, we present Peeragogy in Action, a project guide in four
parts. Each part relates to one or more sections of our handbook, and
suggests activities to try while you explore peer learning. These
activities are designed for flexible use by widely distributed groups,
collaborating via a light-weight infrastructure. Participants may be
educators, community organizers, designers, hackers, dancers, students,
seasoned peeragogues, or first-timers. The guide should be useful for
groups who want to build a strong collaboration, as well as to
facilitators or theorists who want to hone their practice or approach.
Together, we will use our various talents to build effective methods and
models for peer produced peer learning. Let’s get started!
**Setting the initial challenge and building a framework for
accountability among participants is an important starting point.**
*Activity* – Come up with a plan for your work and an agreement, or
informal contract, for your group. You can use the suggestions in this
guide as a starting point, but your first task is to revise the plan to
suit your needs. It might be helpful to ask: What are you interested in
learning? What is your primary intended outcome? What problem do you
hope to solve? How collaborative does your project need to be? How will
the participants' expertise in the topic vary? What sort of support will
you and other participants require? What problems won’t you solve?
*Technology* – Familiarize yourself with the collaboration tools you
intend to use (e.g. WordPress, Git and LaTeX, YouTube, GIMP, a public
wiki, a private forum, or something else) and create a first post, edit,
or video introducing yourself and your project(s) to others in the
worldwide peeragogy community.
*Suggested Resources* – The Peeragogy Handbook, parts I
(‘[Introduction](http://peeragogy.org/)’) and II (‘[Peer
Learning](http://peeragogy.org/peer-learning/)’). You may also want to
work through a short lesson called [Implementing
Paragogy](https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Arided/ImplementingParagogy),
from the early days before the Peeragogy project was convened. For a
succinct theoretical treatment, please refer to our literature review,
which we have adapted into a [Wikipedia
page](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_learning).
*Further Reading* – Boud, D. and Lee, A. (2005). *‘Peer learning’ as
pedagogic discourse for research education*. Studies in Higher
Education, 30(5):501–516.
*Observations from the Peeragogy project* – We had a fairly weak project
structure at the outset, which yielded mixed results. One participant
said: “I definitely think I do better when presented with a framework or
scaffold to use for participation or content development.” Yet the same
person wrote with enthusiasm about models of entrepreneurship, saying
she was “freed of the requirement or need for an entrepreneurial
visionary.” In short,
### 
**Other people can support you in achieving your goal and make the work
more fun too.**
*Activity* – Write an invitation to someone who can help as a
co-facilitator on your project. Clarify what you hope to learn from them
and what your project has to offer. Helpful questions to consider as you
think about who to invite: What resources are available or missing? What
do you already have that you can build on? How will you find the
necessary resources? Who else is interested in these kinds of
challenges? Go through the these questions again when you have a small
group, and come up with a list of more people you'd like to invite or
consult with as the project progresses.
*Technology* – Identify tools that could potentially be useful during
the project, even if it's new to you. Start learning how to use them.
Connect with people in other locales who share similar interests or know
the tools.
*Suggested resources* – The Peeragogy Handbook, parts V (‘[Convening a
Group](http://peeragogy.org/convening-a-group/)’) and VI (‘[Organizing a
Learning
Context](http://peeragogy.org/organizing-a-learning-context/)’).
*Recommended Reading* – Schmidt, J. Philipp. (2009). Commons-Based Peer
Production and education. Free Culture Research Workshop Harvard
University, 23 October 2009.
*Observations from the Peeragogy project* – We used a strategy of "open
enrollment." New people were welcome to join the project at any time. We
also encouraged people to either stay involved or withdraw; several
times over the first year, we required participants to explicitly
reaffirm interest in order to stay registered in the forum and mailing
list.
### 
**Solidifying your work plan and learning strategy together with
concrete measures for ‘success’ can move the project forward
significantly. **
*Activity* – Distill your ideas by writing an essay, making visual
sketches, or creating a short video to communicate the unique plans for
organization and evaluation that your group will use. By this time, you
should have identified which aspects of the project need to be refined
or expanded. Dive in!
*Technology* – Take time to mentor others or be mentored by someone,
meeting up in person or online. Pair up with someone else and share
knowledge together about one or more tools. You can discuss some of the
difficulties that you’ve encountered, or teach a beginner some tricks.
*Suggested resources* – The Peeragogy Handbook, parts VII
(‘[Co-Facilitation and
Co-Working](http://peeragogy.org/co-facilitation/)’), VII
(‘[Assessment](http://peeragogy.org/assessment/)’), and part IV
(‘[Patterns, Use cases, and
Examples](http://peeragogy.org/patterns-usecases/)’).
*Recommended reading* – Argyris, Chris. "Teaching smart people how to
learn." Harvard Business Review 69.3 (1991); and, Gersick, Connie J.G.
"Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group
development." Academy of Management Journal 31.1 (1988): 9-41.
*Observations from the Peeragogy project* – Perhaps one of the most
important roles in the Peeragogy project was the role of the ‘Wrapper’,
who prepared and circulated weekly summaries of forum activity. This
helped people stay informed about what was happening in the project even
if they didn’t have time to read the forums. We’ve also found that small
groups of people who arrange their own meetings are often the most
productive.
### 
**Wrap up the project with a critical assessment of progress and
directions for future work. Share any changes to this syllabus that you
think would be useful for future peeragogues!**
*Activity* – Identify the main obstacles you encountered. What are some
goals you were not able to accomplish yet? Did you foresee these
challenges at the outset? How did this project resemble or differ from
others you’ve worked on? How would you do things differently in future
projects? What would you like to tackle next?
*Writing* – Communicate your reflection case. Prepare a short written or
multimedia essay, dealing with your experiences in this course. Share
the results by posting it where others in the broader Peeragogy project
can find it.
*‘Extra credit’* – Contribute back to one of the other organisations or
projects that helped you on this peeragogical journey. Think about what
you have to offer. Is it a bug fix, a constructive critique, pictures,
translation help, PR, wiki-gnoming or making a cake? Make it something
special, and people will remember you and thank you for it.
*Suggested resources* – The Peeragogy Handbook, parts IX
(‘[Technologies, Services, and
Platforms](http://peeragogy.org/resources/technologies/)’) and X
(‘[Resources](http://peeragogy.org/resources/)’).
*Recommended reading* – Stallman, Richard. “[Why software should be
free](http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html)” (1992).
*Observations from the Peeragogy project* – When we were deciding how to
license our work, we decided to use CC0, emphasizing ‘re-usability’ and
hoping that other people would come and remix the handbook. At the
moment, we're still waiting to see the first remix edition, but we're
confident that it will come along in due course. Maybe you'll be the one
who makes it!
## Micro-Case Study: The Peeragogy Project, Year 1
Since its conception in early 2012, the Peeragogy Project has collected
over 3700 comments in our discussion forum, and over 200 pages of
expository text in the handbook. It has given contributors a new way of
thinking about things together. However, the project has not had the
levels of engagement that should be possible, given the technology
available, the global interest in improving education, and the number of
thoughful participants who expressed interest. We hope that the handbook
and this accompanying syllabus will provide a seed for a new phase of
learning, with many new contributors and new ideas drawn from real-life
applications.
## Micro-Case Study: The Peeragogy Project, Year 2
10 new handbook contributors joined in the project's second year. We've
begun a series of weekly Hangouts on Air that have brought in many
additional discussants, all key people who can help to fulfil
peeragogy's promise. The handbook has been considerably improved through
edits and discussion. The next step for us is putting this work into
action in the *Peeragogy Accelerator*.
# recommended.md
## Which is more fun, skateboarding or physics?
### On the subject of fun and boredom
1. Kano, J. (1995/2013). [The Contribution of Judo to
Education](http://judoinfo.com/kano.htm) by Jigoro Kano.
2. Wallace, D.F. (2011). *The [Pale
King](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pale_King).* NY: [Back Bay
Books](http://www.amazon.com/Pale-King-David-Foster-Wallace/dp/0316074225).
3. Situationist International & Students of the University of
Strasbourg (2000/1966).* [On the Poverty of Student
Life](https://archive.org/stream/OnThePovertyOfStudentLife#page/n1/mode/2up)*.
Detroit: Black and Red.
## How do we know if we’ve won?
1. Tuckman, B. (1965). [Developmental Sequence in Small
Groups.](http://aneesha.ceit.uq.edu.au/drupal/sites/default/files/Tuckman%201965.pdf)
*Psychological Bulletin* 63, 6, pp. 384-399.
2. Tuckman, B. & Jansen, MAC. (1977). [Stages of Small-Group
Development
Revisited](http://www.freewebs.com/group-management/BruceTuckman(1).pdf).
*Group and Organization Studies*, 2, 4, p. 419.
3. Salmon, G. [The five stage
model](http://www.gillysalmon.com/five-stage-model.html).
[http://www.gillysalmon.com/five-stage-model.html](http://www.gillysalmon.com/five-stage-model.html)
4. Salmon, G. (2011). [E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning
online](http://www.atimod.com/book/13/e-moderating-book-third-edition)
(3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
5. I, We, It's, It, from Wilber, K. The [Four Quadrant
Model](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wilber).
6. "Types of learning activities", Assimilative, Information
Processing, Communicative, Productive, Experiential, Adaptive from
Conole, G. and Oliver, M. (2013). [Trajectories of
e-learning](http://www.slideshare.net/GrainneConole/conole-south-africa)
7. "Vision of the course", guidance & support, communication &
collaboration, reflection & demonstration, content & activities from
Conole, G. and Oliver, M. (2012). [The 7C
workshop](7Cs%20Workshop%20-%20University%20of%20Leicester) and
[Trajectories of
e-learning](http://www.slideshare.net/GrainneConole/conole-south-africa)
(2013)
8. Conole, G. and Oliver, M. (Eds.) [Contemporary Perspectives in
E-Learning Research: Themes, Methods and Impact on
Practice](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Contemporary-Perspectives-Learning-Research-Practice/dp/0415393949).
Open and Flexible Learning Series. Abingdon: Routledge.
9. Conole, G. (2010). [What would learning in an open world look like?
A vision for the future.](http://oro.open.ac.uk/22889/) In: *Edmedia
Conference 2010*, 29 June - 3 July 2010, Toronto, Canada.
10. Deakin-Crick, R. (2007). [Learning how to learn: The Dynamic
assessment of Learning
Power](http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09585170701445947#.Us3Xh2TuIqQ).
*The Curriculum Journal*, 18, 2, pp. 135-153.
**DOI:**10.1080/09585170701445947
11. Gardner, H. Multiple Intelligence Theory.
[http://www.multipleintelligencetheory.co.uk/](http://www.multipleintelligencetheory.co.uk/)
12. See "mental states" from Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). [*Flow: The
Psychology of Optimal
Experience*](http://www.amazon.com/Flow-The-Psychology-Optimal-Experience/dp/0061339202).
New York: Harper and Row.
## Motivation
1. Sinek, S. (2009). [Start With Why: How Great Leaders Inspire
Everyone To Take
Action](http://www.amazon.com/Start-Why-Leaders-Inspire-Everyone/dp/1591846447).
London: Penguin Books.
## Case Study: 5PH1NX
\1. Senge, P. M. (1990). [The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Science of
the Learning
Organization](http://www.amazon.com/The-Fifth-Discipline-Practice-Organization/dp/0553456342).
New York: Doubleday/Currency.
## Patterns
### Further readings on patterns
1. Alexander, C. (1979). [The Timeless Way of
Building](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Timeless_Way_of_Building).
Berkeley, CA: Center for Environmental Structure.
2. Article, “Manifesto 1991” by Christopher Alexander, Progressive
Architecture, July 1991, pp. 108–112, provides a brief summary of
Alexander’s ideas in the form of a critique of mainstream
architecture. Many of the same sorts of critical points would carry
over to mainstream education. Some highlights are excerpted
[here](https://plus.google.com/u/0/108598104736826154120/posts/agWYcqPhqSN).
3. Mader, S. (2008).
[Wikipatterns](http://www.wikipatterns.com/display/wikipatterns/About).
Indianapolis, IN: Wiley.
4. Alexander, C. (1996). [The Origins of Pattern Theory, the Future of
the Theory, And The Generation of a Living
World](http://www.patternlanguage.com/archive/ieee/ieeetext.htm).
Talk at the 1996 ACM Conference on Object-Oriented Programs,
Systems, Languages and Applications (OOPSLA).
### Other related work
1. The [Cluetrain Manifesto](http://www.cluetrain.com).
http://www.cluetrain.com/
2. Kelly, K. (1998). [New Rules for the New
Economy](http://www.kk.org/newrules/contents.php). New York: Penguin
Books. [(You can also](http://www.kk.org/newrules/contents.php)[read
the book online](http://www.kk.org/newrules/contents.php))
3. [OpenHatch.org](http://openhatch.org/), “an open source community
aiming to help newcomers find their way into free software
projects.”
### On Newcomers
1. Steinmacher, I., Wiese, I., Chaves, A.P. and M.A. Gerosa (2013).
[Why do newcomers abandon open source software
projects?](http:http://www.academia.edu/2908840/Why_Do_Newcomers_Abandon_Open_Source_Software_Projects//)
[Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE), 6th
International
Workshop](http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/mostRecentIssue.jsp?punumber=6596554),
San Francisco, CA.
## Antipatterns
1. The [Sapir-Whorf
Hypothesis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity)
2. Kay, P. and W. Kempton. (1984). [What is Sapir-Whorf
Hypothesis?](http://www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/~kay/Kay&Kempton.1984.pdf)
*American Anthropologist* 86. pp. 65-79.
3. Bourdieu's notion of “[symbolic
violence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolic_violence)”
4. Lawler, S. (2011). [Symbolic
violence](http://knowledge.sagepub.com/view/consumerculture/n534.xml).
In D. Southerton (Ed.), *Encyclopedia of consumer culture.*(pp.
1423-1425). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412994248.n534
5. [These fifteen properties are the glue which binds wholeness
together](http://www.livingneighborhoods.org/ht-0/fifteen.htm). A
summary of Alexander's more recent work, going beyond the idea of a
pattern language.
6. Alexander, C. (2004). [The Nature of Order. An Essay on the Art of
Building and the Nature of the
Universe](http://www.natureoforder.com/overview.htm). Berkeley, CA:
The Center for Environmental Structure.
## Convening a Group
1. Engeström, Y. (1999). [Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing
cycles of knowledge creation in
practice](http://books.google.com.ec/books?hl=es&lr=&id=GCVCZy2xHD4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA377&dq=Innovative+learning+in+work+teams:+Analyzing+cycles+of+knowledge+creation+in+practice&ots=lY7NQFDbhY&sig=cjJB4WaOt2vM2vySRzu0TGGETH0#v=onepage&q=Innovative%20learning%20in%20work%20teams:%20Analyzing%20cycles%20of%20knowledge%20creation%20in%20practice&f=false).
In Engeström, Y., Miettinen R. & R.L. Punamäki (Eds.) *Perspectives
on activity theory.* Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp.
377-404.
2. Gersick, C. (1988). [Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new
model of group
development](http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/256496?uid=3738664&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103244756847).
*Academy of Management Journal,* 3, 1, pp. 9-41.
3. Mimi Ito's observations about [manga fan groups co-learning
Japanese](http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/full_pdfs/hanging_out.pdf)
4. Rheingold U, [MindAmp
groups](http://socialmediaclassroom.com/host/mindamp5/lockedwiki/main-page)
5. Shneiderman, B. (2007). [Creativity support tools: accelerating
discovery and
innovation](http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1323688.1323689). *Commun.
ACM* 50, 12 (December 2007).
6. de Ugarte, D. [**Phyles: Economic Democracy in the Network
Century**](http://p2pfoundation.net/Economic_Democracy_in_the_Network_Century).(summary).
[http://p2pfoundation.net/Phyles](http://p2pfoundation.net/Phyles).
In Spanish: [Filés: de las naciones a las
redes.](http://lasindias.com/de-las-naciones-a-las-redes) Biblioteca
de las Indias.
[http://deugarte.com/gomi/phyles.pdf](http://deugarte.com/gomi/phyles.pdf)
7. Scheidel, T. M., & Crowell, L. (1964). [Idea development in small
discussion
groups](http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00335636409382654?journalCode=rqjs20#.Us4j3GTuIqQ).
*Quarterly Journal of Speech*, 50, 2, 140-145.
8. Scheidel, T. M., & Crowell, L. (1979). *[Discussing and Deciding. A
Desk Book for Group Leaders and
Members](http://www.amazon.com/Discussing-Deciding-Group-Leaders-Members/dp/0024067504).
*London: Macmillan.
9. The Peeragogy Handbook, [How to Organize a
MOOC](http://peeragogy.org/organizing-a-learning-context/connectivism-in-practice-how-to-organize-a-mooc/ "Peeragogy chapter on MOOCs").
[peeragogy.org](peeragogy.org)
10. Davidson, C. (2013). [How a Class Becomes a
Community](http://news.rapgenius.com/Cathy-davidson-how-a-class-becomes-a-community-theory-method-examples-chapter-one-lyrics):
Theory, Method, Examples.
[https://www.hastac.org/book/export/html/107536](https://www.hastac.org/book/export/html/107536)
## K-12 Peeragogy
### amazing technology tools for your classroom:
- [Richard Byrne](http://www.freetech4teachers.com/)
- [Sylvia Tolisano](http://langwitches.org/blog/)
- [Caitlin
Tucker](http://catlintucker.com/2011/11/12-tech-tools-that-will-transform-your-classroom/)
- [Vicki Davis](http://coolcatteacher.blogspot.ca/)
- [Google Media
Tools](http://www.google.com/get/mediatools/gather.html)
### How to develop your PLN:
- Lucier, R. (June 2012). [Seven Degrees of
Connectedness.](http://thecleversheep.blogspot.ca/2012/06/seven-degrees-of-connectedness.html)
The Clever Sheep.
[http://thecleversheep.blogspot.ca/](http://thecleversheep.blogspot.ca/)
- [TeachThought](%20http://thecleversheep.blogspot.ca/2012/06/seven-degrees-of-connectedness_06.html)
### Theory & philosophy of connected learning for classroom
transformation:
- [David Truss](http://pairadimes.davidtruss.com/)
- [Steven Downes](http://www.downes.ca/presentation/264)
- [Will Richardson](http://willrichardson.com/)
## Case Study: Collaborative Explorations
1. Paley, V. G. (1997). [The Girl with the Brown Crayon: How Children
use Stories to Shape Their
Lives.](http://www.amazon.com/The-Girl-Brown-Crayon-Childen/dp/0674354427)
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2. Paley, V. G. (2010). [The Boy on the Beach: Building Community by
Play](http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/B/bo8434942.html).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3. Taylor, P. J. and J. Szteiter (2012). [Taking Yourself Seriously:
Processes of Research and
Engagement](http://cct.wikispaces.umb.edu/file/view/TYS.pdf/281917816/TYS.pdf).
Arlington, MA: The Pumping Station.
4. White, M. (2011). [Narrative Practice: Continuing the
Conversation](http://www.amazon.com/Narrative-Practice-Conversations-Michael-White/dp/0393706923).
New York: Norton.
## Adding Structure with Activities
1. [The d.school Bootcamp
Bootleg](http://dschool.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/BootcampBootleg2010v2SLIM.pdf)
(CC-By-NC-SA) includes lots of fun activities to try. Can you crack
the code and define new ones that are equally cool?
2. Puzio, R. S. (2005). "[On free math and copyright
bottlenecks](http://www.educopia.org/sites/educopia.org/files/FCDL-Proceedings-FINAL_0.pdf)."
*Free Culture and the Digital Library Symposium Proceedings*. Emory
University, Atlanta, GA.
## Connectivism in Practice — How to Organize a MOOC (Massive Open
Online Class)
1. Downes, S., Siemens, G. and Cormier, D. (2011) [MOOC
site](http://change.mooc.ca "Change MOOC")
[http://change.mooc.ca](http://change.mooc.ca)
2. Downes, S. (2007). [What Connectivism
Is](http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2007/02/what-connectivism-is.html).
*Half an Hour*. Blog post.
3. Downes, S. (2012). [Connectivism and Collective
Knowledge](http://www.downes.ca/files/Connective_Knowledge-19May2012.pdf).
Essays on meaning and learning networks. National Research Council.
Canada.
4. Downes, S. (2005). [An Introduction to Connective
Knowledge](http://www.downes.ca/post/33034).
[http://www.downes.ca/post/33034](http://www.downes.ca/post/33034) .
Published as *An Introduction to Connective Knowledge* in Hug, Theo
(ed.) (2007). Media, Knowledge & Education. Exploring new Spaces,
Relations and Dynamics in Digital Media Ecologies.* Proceedings of
the International Conference* held on June 25-26, 2007.
5. Downes, S. (2012). [Facilitating a Massive Open Online
Course](http://www.downes.ca/presentation/290).
[http://www.downes.ca/presentation/290](http://www.downes.ca/presentation/290)
6. [gRSShopper](http://grsshopper.downes.ca/index.html)
7. Siemens, G. (2004). [Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital
Age](http://www.ingedewaard.net/papers/connectivism/2005_siemens_ALearningTheoryForTheDigitalAge.pdf).
elearnspace.
8. Siemens, G. (2011). [A Connectivism
Glossary](http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Connectivism_glossary)
[http://www.connectivism.ca/?p=303](http://www.connectivism.ca/?p=303)
9. Siemens, G. (2011). [Rhizomes and
Networks](http://www.connectivism.ca/?p=329) .
[http://www.connectivism.ca/?p=329](http://www.connectivism.ca/?p=329)
10. Cormier, D. (2008). [Rhizomatic Education: Community as
Curriculum](http://innovateonline.info/pdf/vol4_issue5/Rhizomatic_Education-__Community_as_Curriculum.pdf "opens as PDF document").
Dave's Educational Blog. Blog post.
11. Siemens, G. (2006). [Knowing
Knowledge](http://www.elearnspace.org/KnowingKnowledge_LowRes.pdf).
[knowingknowledge.com](http://www.knowingknowledge.com/)
12. Rheingold, H. (2012). [Net
Smart](http://www.amazon.com/Net-Smart-ebook/dp/B007D5UP9G): How to
Thrive online.
[http://rheingold.com/netsmart/](http://rheingold.com/netsmart/)(about
internal and external literacies for coping with the 'always on'
digital era)
13. de Ward, I. (2012). [Massive Open Online
Courses](http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/886/): Setting
Up (StartToMOOC, Part 1). *Learning Solutions Magazine*.
14. [The MOOC guide](https://sites.google.com/site/themoocguide/)
[https://sites.google.com/site/themoocguide/](https://sites.google.com/site/themoocguide/)
## Co-Facilitation
1. [Peer Education: Training of Trainers
Manual](http://www.scribd.com/doc/54544925/51/TRAINING-TOPIC-Co-facilitation-skills "UN Interagency Group on Young Peoples Health; Sub-Committee on Peer Education").
(2003). UN Interagency Group on Young Peoples Health. Development
and Protection in Europe and Central Asia.
2. Pfeifer, J.W. and Johnes, J. [Co
Facilitating](http://www.breakoutofthebox.com/Co-FacilitatingPfeifferJones.pdf).[www.breakoutofthebox.com](%20www.breakoutofthebox.com)
3. [Summary](http://reviewing.co.uk/archives/art/13_1_what_do_facilitators_do.htm#8_WAYS_OF_FACILITATING_ACTIVE_LEARNING "8 ways of facilitating active learning")
of John Heron’s model of the role of facilitators
4. Heron, J. (1999). [The Complete Facilitator's
Handbook](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Complete-Facilitators-Handbook-John-Heron/dp/0749427981).
London: Kogan Page.
5. Smith, M. K. (1997, 2004). [Carl Rogers, Core Conditions and
Education](http://infed.org/mobi/carl-rogers-core-conditions-and-education/).
T*he Encyclopaedia of Informal Education*.
[[www.infed.org/thinkers/et-rogers.htm](http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-rogers.htm).
Last update: May 29, 2012]
6. [Peer Mediation](http://www.studygs.net/peermed.htm).*Study Guides
and Strategies.*
[http://www.studygs.net/peermed.htm](http://www.studygs.net/peermed.htm)
7. Bohemia Interactive Community (2009). [Wiki
Guidelines](http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Bohemia_Interactive_Community:Guidelines)
8. [Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (1998) *Carl Roger's Helping System. Journey
and Substance.* London:
Sage](http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Bohemia_Interactive_Community:Guidelines)
9. Wikipedia: [Five
Pillars](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars).
10. Rheingold, H. (2011). [Learning Reimagined: Participatory, Peer,
Global,
Online](http://dmlcentral.net/blog/howard-rheingold/learning-reimagined-participatory-peer-global-online).
*DLM Central*. Blog post.
11. [Research Gate](http://www.researchgate.net/) is a network dedicated
to science and research, in which members connect, collaborate and
discover scientific publications, jobs and conferences.
12. The Community Tool Box. (2013). [Creating and Facilitating Peer
Support
Groups](http://ctb.ku.edu/en/tablecontents/section_1180.aspx). The
Community Tool Box is a service of the [Work Group for Community
Health and Development](http://www.communityhealth.ku.edu/) at the
University of Kansas.
13. [Facilitation
Tips.](http://www1.villanova.edu/villanova/artsci/acsp/resources/toolkit.html)
Tool Kit for DE. Villanova University
14. Buchanan, P. (2011). [Herding Passionate Cats: The Role of
Facilitator in a Peer
Learning](http://pippabuchanan.com/2011/09/04/herding-passionate-cats-the-role-of-facilitator-in-a-peer-learning-process/).
[http://pippabuchanan.com](http://pippabuchanan.com). Blog post.
15. Vidmar, D. (2008). [Reflective Peer Facilitation: Crafting
Collaborative
Self-Assessment](http://webpages.sou.edu/~vidmar/SOARS2008/vidmar.ppt).
[PPT]. Southern Oregon University Library, Southern Oregon
University.
16. [Effective
Co-Facilitation](http://www.umass.edu/ewc/ea/Facilitation%20Skills/important%20tips.doc).
[Doc]. Everywoman's Center, University of Massachusetts, Amherst,
MA.
17. Argyris, C. (1991). [Teaching smart people how to
learn.](http://www.ncsu.edu/park_scholarships/pdf/chris_argyris_learning.pdf)
*Harvard Business Review* 69, 3. Also published in expanded form as
a
[book](http://www.amazon.com/Teaching-People-Harvard-Business-Classics/dp/1422126005)
with the same name.
## Assessment
1. Morgan, C. and M. O'Reilly. (1999). [Assessing Open and distance
learners.](http://www.amazon.com/Assessing-Distance-Learners-Flexible-Learning/dp/0749428783/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1388199564&sr=1-1)
London: Kogan Page.
2. Schmidt, J. P., Geith, C., Håklev, S. and J. Thierstein. (2009).
[Peer-To-Peer Recognition of Learning in Open
Education](http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/641/1389).
*International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning*.
Volume 10, Number 5.
3. L.S. Vygotsky (1978). [Mind in Society: Development of Higher
Psychological
Processes](http://books.google.com/books?id=RxjjUefze_oC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false "Mind in Society").
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4. [Miettinen](http://org.sagepub.com/search?author1=Reijo+Miettinen&sortspec=date&submit=Submit),
R. and [J.
Virkkunen](http://org.sagepub.com/search?author1=Jaakko+Virkkunen&sortspec=date&submit=Submit).
(2005). [Epistemic Objects, Artifacts and Organizational
Change](http://org.sagepub.com/content/12/3/437.abstract).
*Organization,* 12, pp. 437-456.
## Technologies, Services, and Platforms
1. Greif, I. and S. Sarin (1986). [Data Sharing in Group
Work.](http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=637092) CSCW'86 Proceedings
of the 1986 ACM Conference on Computer-supported cooperative work,
pp. 175-183.
2. Greif, I. (ed.) (1988). [Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: A Book
of
Readings](http://www.amazon.com/Computer-Supported-Cooperative-Work-Book-Readings/dp/0934613575).
San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman.
3. Greif, I. (1988). [Remarks in panel discussion on CSCW: What does it
mean?](http://dl.acm.org/author_page.cfm?id=81100427186&query=(Author:81100427186)%20&querydisp=(Author:81100427186)%20&role=Author&perpage=10&start=11&slide=1&srt=meta_published_date%20dsc&short=0&source_disp=&since_month=&since_year=&before_month=&before_year=&coll=DL&dl=GUIDE&termshow=matchboolean&range_query=&CFID=281196399&CFTOKEN=40787810)
CSCW ‘88. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported
Cooperative Work, September 26-28, 1988, Portland, Oregon, ACM, New
York, NY.
4. Kammersgaard, J. (1988). [Four different perspectives on
human-computer
interaction](http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=51416).*
International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, *Volume 28 Issue 4,
pp. 343 - 362.
5. Vessey, I. & Galletta, D. (1991). [Cognitive Fit: An Empirical Study
of Information
Acquisition](http://home.business.utah.edu/actme/7410/ME%204_15_02/Vessey%20Galletta%20ISR%201991.pdf).
*Information Systems Research*, 2(1), pp. 63-84.
6. DeSanctis, G. & M.S. Poole. (1994). [Capturing the Complexity in
Advanced Technology Use: Adaptative Structuration
Theory](http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/pdf/10.1287/orsc.5.2.121).
*Organization Science*, 5, 2, pp. 121-147.
### Additional Tips from an open source perspective
Care of User: Neophyte on the Teaching Open Source wiki
1. Bacon, J. (2009). [The Art of
Community](http://www.amazon.com/The-Art-Community-Building-Participation/dp/0596156715):
Building the New Age of Participation. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly
Media.
2. [Open Advice](http://open-advice.org/) is a knowledge collection
from a wide variety of Free Software projects.
3. [The Open Source Way](http://www.theopensourceway.org/) is a way of
thinking about how people collaborate within a community to achieve
common goals and interests.
## Forums
1. Rheingold, H. [Why use forums?](http://blip.tv/file/1123048) *Social
Media Classroom*.
2. Rheingold, H. (1998). [The Art of Hosting Good Conversations
Online](http://www.rheingold.com/texts/artonlinehost.html).
3. Gallagher, E. J. (2006). [Guidelines for Discussion Board
Writing](http://www.lehigh.edu/~indiscus/doc_guidelines.html).
Lehigh University.
4. Gallagher, E.J. (2009).[Shaping a culture of conversation. The
discussion board and
beyond](http://www.academiccommons.org/2009/01/shaping-a-culture-of-conversation-the-discussion-board-and-beyond/).
The Academic Commons.
5. Academic Technology Center. (2010). [Improving the Use of Discussion
Boards](http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/ATC/Collaboratory/Idea/boards.html).
Worcester Polytechnic Institute.
## Real-time Meetings
1. Howard Rheingold's webconferencing
[bookmarks](http://delicious.com/hrheingold/webconferencing).
## Still more recommended reading
### On Paragogy
1. Corneli, J. (2010). Implementing Paragogy. Lesson plan. Wikiversity.
2. Corneli, J. and C. Danoff. (2010/2013).
[Paragogy.net.](http://paragogy.net/) Collection of resources,
projects and readings about *paragogy.*
### On Learning vs Training
1. Hart, J. (April 20th, 2012).[Is it time for a BYOL (Bring Your Own
Learning) strategy for your
organization?](http://www.c4lpt.co.uk/blog/2012/04/20/is-it-time-for-a-byol-bring-your-own-learning-strategy-in-your-organization-byol/)
*Learning in the Social Space. Jane Hart's Blog. *Blog post.
### On PLNs
1. Rheingold, H. (2010). [Shelly Terrell: Global Netweaver, Curator,
PLN
Builder.](http://dmlcentral.net/blog/howard-rheingold/shelly-terrell-global-netweaver-curator-pln-builder)
*DML Central.*
2. Richardson, W. and R. Mancabelli. (2011). [Personal Learning
Networks: Using the Power of Connection to Transform
Education](http://www.amazon.com/Personal-Learning-Networks-Connections-Transform/dp/193554327X).
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
3. Howard Rheingold’s PLN links on Delicious
### A word list for your inner edu-geek
You can read about all of these things on Wikipedia.
1. [Constructivism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(philosophy_of_education))
2. [Social
constructivism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructivism)
3. [Radical
constructivism](http://www.english.iup.edu/mmwimson/Syllabi/803/721/Radical%20Constructivism%20%20%20721.htm)
4. [Enactivism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enactivism_(psychology))
5. [Constructionism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructionism_(learning_theory))
6. [Connectivism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectivism)
# style.md
*This is a How-To Handbook.*
## Keep it short
The easiest sections to read are those that are shorter and include some
kind of visual (video or image) and have some personal connection (i.e.
they tell a story). For anything longer, break it up into sub-pages, add
visuals, make sure each sub-page is accessible to someone (who is it?).
Think clearly of this reader, talk to them.
## Make it clear
We'll illustrate this point by example. The original full title of the
book was "The Peeragogy Handbook: A resource for self-organizing
self-learners". But
“[self-organizing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization)” is a
technical term, and "self-learner" is a confusing neologism. We
shouldn't use technical terms unless we explain them. So we really
shouldn't use it in the first sentence or paragraph, or title, of the
book because we'll scare people off or confuse them. If we want to
explain what "self-organization" means and why it is relevant for
peeragogy, then we can take a chapter to do that much later on in the
book. At the same time, we shouldn't try to "say the same thing in a
simpler way." We should try to get rid of the technical concept
completely and see what's left. The easiest thing to do in such cases is
to delete the sentence completely and start over: when in doubt, speak
plainly.
## Don't overdo it with bullet points
Text can be very hard to read when there are more than a few bullet
points included. Numbered lists should also be used sparingly. It also
seems that when many disjointed bullet points appear, sometimes the
author is really just indexing the main points that are presented better
in someone else's narrative. Therefor, consider replacing an entire
bulleted list with a reference to someone else's book/webpage/chapter.
In today's hyperlinked world, it's easy enough for the reader to go
elsewhere to get good content (and indeed, we should make it easy for
them to find the best treatments around!). It is not very pleasant to
have to *read* a taxonomy.
## Include activities
When reading, editing or otherwise working your way through the book,
please make note of any activities or exercises that come to mind, and
share them. We're always striving to be more practical and applicable.
## Don't be overly chatty
In our efforts to escape from academia-speak and simplify the text in
the handbook, it's important to make sure we are not heading towards the
other extreme -- being too conversational. When we're having a
conversation with someone, we tend to pepper our ideas with transitional
or pivotal phrases ("In any event," "With that said," "As I mentioned
elsewhere," etc.) that help to keep the talk flowing. We also go off on
brief tangents before making our way back to the main topic, and
sometimes express ourselves in run-on sentences. While this is perfectly
natural in speech, it can be confusing and complex in written text.
Let's strive for the perfect balance of simple yet professional writing.
## Additional style bonus points
- Avoid double lines after paragraphs; this is a leftover from the age
of typewriters and can create "rivers" of white space.
- Capitalize the first word of each item in a bulleted list,
especially if items include a verb form (this list is an example!).
Punctuate uniformly.
- Capitalize the first word of headings and subheadings; lower case
all others.
## Format your HTML nicely
We need to be able to process the content from this Wordpress site and
turn it into various formats like LaTeX and EPUB. Our automated tools
work much better if pages are formatted with simple and uniform HTML
markup. Some key points:
- Mark up your links: use [The Peeragogy
Handbook](http://peeragogy.org) instead of
[http://peeragogy.org](http://peeragogy.org). It's best if the link
text is somewhat descriptive.
- Use a numbered list to format your references (see [Convening a
Group](http://peeragogy.org/convening-a-group/) for one example of
an article that gets this right!)
- Use Heading 2 and Heading 3 tags to mark up sections, not **bold**
text. If you use bold or italics in your paragraphs, you should
**check** that the markup *is actually correct*. It should exactly
surround the words that you're marking up -- `like this` --
and it should not include extra spaces around marked up words --
` NOT like this .`
- Be aware that Wordpress does not always add paragraph tags to your
paragraphs.
- Wordpress also tries to replace straight quote marks with “smart
quotes”, but it sometimes doesn't achieve the aim. If you notice
weird quotemarks (especially in the PDF version), you can add smart
quote marks by hand.
# meet-the-team.md
[](http://peeragogy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Bryan.jpg)**Bryan
Alexander – USA, VT ****Author** I research the ways new technologies
change education, teaching, learning, and scholarship. I'm passionate
about storytelling, gaming, pedagogy, and understanding the future. My
family homesteads on top of a little mountain, raising food.
Reach [Bryan on Twitter](https://twitter.com/#!/BryanAlexander) |
[Bryan’s personal website](http://bryanalexander.org/)
**Paul Allison – USA,
NY****[](http://peeragogy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Paul.jpg)
Author** I teach at the [Bronx Academy Senior
High](http://bronxbash.com), I'm part of the [New York City Writing
Project](http://nycwritingproject.org), and I'm the NYC Technology
Liaison for the [National Writing Project](http://nwp.org). I help
manage [Youth Voices](http://youthvoices.net/) and I co-produce
[Teachers Teaching Teachers](http://teachersteachingteachers.org).
Reach [Paul on
Google+](https://plus.google.com/u/0/113993022447291199374/about) |
[Paul’s personal website](http://teachersteachingteachers.org)
**María F. Arenas – República
Argentina****[](http://peeragogy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Maria.jpg)**
**Author, Editor** Independent consultant researcher on TICS applied to
Learning, Digital Communication, Institutional, Corporate. On line
facilitator tutorship. Professor on Semiotics, Social Communication,
Networking. Non Violent Communication.
Reach [María on
Google+](https://plus.google.com/u/0/stream/circles/p2e54657d0d6fc86d) |
** **[María's personal website](http://arenastudies.wordpress.com/)
**[](http://peeragogy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Regis.jpg)Régis
Barondeau – Canada ****Author** I build bridges between research,
praxeology and technology and I become creative "by finding a likeness
between things which were not thought alike before" (Bronowski, 1958).
I'm interested in complexity, culture, social media especially wikis,
education, open government and more.
Reach [Régis on Twitter](https://twitter.com/regisbarondeau) | [Regis'
personal website](http://www.regisbarondeau.com)
**[](http://peeragogy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Doug.jpg)Doug
Breitbart – USA, NJ Author, Meeting Support** I am first and foremost a
catalyst and provocateur who has worn the hats of attorney, consultant,
facilitator, coach, entrepreneur, father, husband, student, teacher, and
passionate believer in a networked, wired and semantic world.
Reach [Doug on
LinkedIn](http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=791427&trk=tab_pro) |
[Doug’s personal website](www.ontologique.com)
[](http://peeragogy.org/resources/meet-the-team/george/)**George
Brett – USA, VA Author, Editor, Meeting Support**
"Autodidactic techno arsty craftsy eclecticist." Many years as a
diplomat for IT technology as applied to research and education. I'm a
teacher/trainer, consultant, analyst, info ferret, artist, life-long
learner, and member of a great family. Looking for the best way to share
skills and experiences with others; and a Gen-Boomer seeking more steady
work.
Reach [George on
LinkedIn](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ghbrett/ "George on LinkedIn") |
[George’s personal website (NB:
archival)](http://ghbrett.org "George's Website")
**[](http://peeragogy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Suz.jpg)Suz
Burroughs - USA, CA ****Author, Designer** I enable the connections
between the teacher and learner in all of us. [Learning
Designer](http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/795/behavior-centered-design-at-google-a-case-study),
[Design Thinking
facilitator](http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/unleashing-creativity-in-googles-csilab.html),
[Visiting Professor of
Innovation](http://www.stmarytx.edu/news/top-stories/index.php?headline=Design_Thinking_Now_a_Part_of_MBA_Program),
and *Communitarian*.
Reach Suz on ... | [Suz’ personal
website](http://susanburroughs.squarespace.com/)
**[](http://peeragogy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Joe.jpg)Joe
Corneli – U.K. ****Author, Editor** Joseph Corneli is a Ph. D. student
at the Knowledge Media Institute of The Open University, UK, where he
does research on how people learn mathematics. He is a member of the
board of directors of the US-based nonprofit,
[PlanetMath.org](planetmath.org).
Reach [Joe on Identi.ca](http://identi.ca/arided) | [Joe’s personal
website](http://metameso.org/~joe%20)
[](http://peeragogy.org/resources/meet-the-team/jay/)
**Jay Cross – USA, CA** **Author**
Jay is the Johnny Appleseed of informal learning. The [Internet Time
Alliance](http://internettimealliance.com/ "Internet Time Alliance"),
which he chairs, helps corporations and governments use networks to
accelerate performance.
Reach [Jay by email](mailto:jaycross@internettime.com) | [Jay's personal
website](http://jaycross.com)
**[](http://peeragogy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Charlie.jpg)Charles
Jeffrey Danoff – USA, IL** **Author** Charles is the Owner of Mr.
Danoff's Teaching Laboratory, an Educational Publishing and Services
firm he established in 2009. With Joe Corneli, he started publishing
research on Paragogy, Peeragogy's inspiration, in late 2010.
Reach [Charles on Identi.ca](http://identi.ca/mrd) | [Charles' personal
website](http://mr.danoff.org)
**[](http://peeragogy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/James.jpg)James
Folkestad - USA, CO Author, Editor, Designer, Developer** My approach to
education has shifted from an emphasis on my teaching, to a more central
focus on student learning, and finally to an activity-systems approach
as I have come to realize that the two (teacher and learner) are
inseparable parts of the learning ecosystem.
Reach [James on
Google+](https://plus.google.com/u/0/114552232610071440407/about) |
[James’ personal website](http://edgility.net)
**[](http://peeragogy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/John.jpg)John
Graves, PhD - New Zealand Editor** Founder of
[SlideSpeech](http://slidespeech.com). Graduate of [Singularity
University](http://singularityu.org) and
[AUT](http://www.aut.ac.nz/ "AUT University").
Reach John on [Twitter](http://twitter.com/slidespeech) | [Personal
website](http://slidespeech.tumblr.com)
**[](http://peeragogy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Gigi.jpg)Gigi
Johnson, EdD – USA, CA Author, Developer** I mix formal learning
programs with programs to help learners begin to work, live, and create
everywhere. My own adventures include writing, singing, video, teaching,
and parenting 3 teens.
Reach [Gigi on Twitter](http://twitter.com/maremel) | [Gigi’s personal
page](http://maremel.com)
**[](http://peeragogy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Anna.jpg)Anna
Keune – Germany/Finland ****Co-author, Designer** I design technology
for learning and I like it.
Reach [Anna on Twitter](https://twitter.com/#!/akeune) | [Anna's
personal website](www.annakeune.com)
[](http://peeragogy.org/resources/meet-the-team/kyle/)**Kyle
Larson - USA, FL** **Editor** Kyle Larson is an undergraduate thesis
student at New College of Florida. His research interests include
composition theory, rhetorical theory, computers and composition, and
pedagogy.
Reach [Kyle on
Google+](https://plus.google.com/110988036495982155492/posts)
**[](http://peeragogy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Roland.jpg)Roland
Legrand – Belgium Author** I'm a financial journalist, heavily involved
in experimenting with social media and new forms for reporting and
community conversation.
Reach [Roland on Twitter](http://www.twitter.com/rolandlegrand) |
[Roland’s personal website](http://www.mixedrealities.com)
**[](http://peeragogy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Amanda.jpg)Amanda
Lyons – **USA**, NY ****Designer** I am a Visual Practitioner,
Organization Development Consultant & Experiential Educator. I love
helping people communicate via visual tools that generally include
markers and paper. I think our education system (in the U.S.) could
benefit from using visual communication tools as well as text based
methods to teach.
Reach [Amanda on Twitter](https://twitter.com/#!/amanda_lyons) |
[Amanda's personal website](www.visualsforchange.com/blog%20%20)
**[](http://peeragogy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Christopher.jpg)Christopher
Neal – USA, WA** **Communications and Media** I am driven by technology
and its ability to modify virtual communities and social media. Coupled
with a passion for Social:Learn, Social:iA, Situated Cognition, Social
Learning Theory, Connectivism and Collective Intelligence etc.
Reach [Christopher on
Google+](https://plus.google.com/u/0/106960445015668581969/posts) |
[Christopher's personal
website](http://beyondcredentials.com/index.php?option=com_bc_profile_pages&uname=berkeleyalum)
**[](http://peeragogy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Ted.jpg)Ted
Newcomb – USA, AZ ****Author, Analytical project overview** Happily
retired grandpa, curating on digital culture, sociology of the web;
interested in collaboration and cooperation in digital networks that
result in positive change.
Reach [Ted on About.me](http://about.me/tcnewcomb) | [Ted’s personal
website](http://www.tcnewcomb.com)
**Charlotte
Pierce – USA, MA ****Editor, Publisher** Indie publisher who finds in
happiness in pushing her limits and seeing them back down. Augmented her
intellect in RheingoldU's [Think-Know
Tools](http://socialmediaclassroom.com/host/think/ "Tools & practices for intellect augumentation & knowledge management")
course, then joined the amazing Peeragogy community, where the plot
thickens.
Reach [Charlotte on
Twitter](https://twitter.com/#!/piercepress "Charlotte Pierce Twitter account")
| [Charlotte's personal
website](http://www.PiercePress.com "Pierce Press, DayTripper Books, Face The Book TV, and Pierce Productions")
**[](http://peeragogy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Howard.jpg)Howard
Rheingold – USA, CA ****Author, Editor** Inspired by Charles Danoff and
Joe Corneli's work on paragogy, I instigated the Peeragogy project in
order to provide a resource for self-organizing self-learners. Learning
is my passion.
Reach [Howard on Twitter](https://twitter.com/#!/hrheingold) | [Howard’s
personal website](http://www.rheingold.com)
**[](http://peeragogy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Paola.jpg)Paola
Ricaurte – Mexico ****Editor, Translator** My belief: education and
technology are essential tools for social change. My challenges:
activist, teacher, mother, immigrant. My philosophy: I am what I am
because of who we all are.
Reach [Paola on Twitter](https://twitter.com/paolaricaurte) | [Paola's
personal website](http://blogs.eluniversal.com.mx/virtualis/)
**Fabrizio
Terzi – IT Inventor, Designer, Translator**
I am involved in social and educational projects related to public
access to knowledge and cultural diversity. I am an active member of FSF
and the FTG -- working on Free/Open Culture.
[Reach Fabrizio on G+](https://plus.google.com/u/0/+FabrizioTerzi/about)
| [Fabrizio Personal Website](http://metameso.org/~fabrizio/)
**[](http://peeragogy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Geoff.jpg)Geoff
Walker – U.K. Author** A Further and Higher Education Lecturer and Tutor
with 12 years experience of teaching in a wide range of subject areas.
Social networker, e-learning advocate and user of blended learning
techniques which follow from experience of teaching distance learning.
Reach [Geoff on Twitter](https://twitter.com/#!/geoffreyawalker) |
[Geoff’s personal website](http://geoffreyawalker.blog.co.uk)
[wpgmza id="1"]
# license.md
These materials are made available under the terms of [Creative Commons
0 copyright waiver](http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)
instead of a "traditional" copyleft license. We the undersigned agree to
the following, wherein "this work" refers to "The Peeragogy Handbook"
and all other content posted on [peeragogy.org](http://peeragogy.org) or
the original collaboratory site,
[http://socialmediaclassroom.com/host/peeragogy](http://socialmediaclassroom.com/host/peeragogy).
**I hereby waive all copyright and related or neighboring rights
together with all associated claims and causes of action with respect to
this work to the extent possible under the law.**
Signed:
- Bryan Alexander
- Paul Allison
- Elisa Armendariz
- Régis Barondeau
- Doug Breitbart
- George Brett
- Suz Burroughs
- Joseph Corneli
- Jay Cross
- Charles Jeffrey Danoff
- Julian Elve
- María Fernanda Arenas
- James Folkestad
- John Graves
- Kathy Gill
- Gigi Johnson
- Anna Keune
- Kyle Larson
- Roland Legrand
- Amanda Lyons
- Christopher Tillman Neal
- Ted Newcomb
- Stephanie Parker
- Miguel Angel Pérez Alvarez
- Charlotte Pierce
- David Preston
- Howard Rheingold
- Paola Ricaurte
- Verena Roberts
- Stephanie Schipper
- Fabrizio Terzi
- Geoff Walker
Note that this waiver does not apply to other works by the above
authors, including works linked to from
[peeragogy.org](http://peeragogy.org). It also does not apply to
embedded content drawn from other sites and included for the reader's
convenience.
Future contributors: Note also that we will require a similar copyright
waiver agreement. That said, the waiver also means that you are free to
do essentially whatever you like with the content in your own work! Have
fun!
### How we came to this decision
These Creative Commons license options were proposed by various members
of the community:
- *CC Zero* - public domain; no restrictions for downstream users
- *CC By-SA* - requires downstream users to include attribution and to
license their work in the same way
- *CC By-SA-NC* - requires downstream users to include attribution, to
license their work in the same way and disallows any commercial use
of the content
After a brief discussion, no one was in favor of restricting downstream
users, so we decided to go with CC0. We agreed that we would get enough
"credit" by having our names on [peeragogy.org](http://peeragogy.org/).
In connection with this discussion, we agreed that we would work on ways
to explicitly build "reusability" into the handbook content.
# heartbeat.md
**Definition**: The project's heartbeat is a recurring activity,
something that makes it so that people experience a “there, there.”
**Problem**: Without someone or something acting as the heartbeat for
the group, energy may dissipate.
**Solution**: People seem to gravitate to regularly scheduled
activities. Sometimes people need a little extra prompt to join in.
**Examples**: In the "Collaborative Lesson Planning" course led by
Charlie Danoff at P2PU, Charlie wrote individual emails to people who
were signed up for the course and who had disappeared, or lurked but
didn't participate. This kept a healthy number of the people in the
group to re-engage and make positive contributions. In more recent
months, Charlotte Pierce has been running weekly meetings by Google
Hangout to coordinate work on the Peeragogy Handbook. Not only have we
gotten a lot of hands-on editorial work done this way, we've generated a
tremendous amount of new material (both text and video footage) that is
likely to find its way into future versions of the book.
**Challenges**: Meetings that happen for the sake of having a meeting
are almost a bad joke. Be aware of the energy that's there before and
after meetings. If the energy isn't sustaining you or your group, think
about what needs to change.
**What’s Next**: When the project is bigger than more than just a few
people, it's likely you'll get several heartbeats -- for instance, we've
recently been running two weekly meetings in the Peeragogy project, for
members with slightly different interests and slightly different
availability. Finding ways to communicate across these different “camps”
is useful.
# carrying_capacity.md
**Definition**: There's only so much any one person can do in a project.
**Problem**: At times, a facilitator or participant in the peer-learning
enterprise may feel he or she is over-contributing -- or, perhaps more
likely, that others are under-contributing -- or that someone else is
railroading an idea or dominating the discussion.
**Solution**: If this happens, take a step back and observe the dynamics
of involvement. Ask questions and let others answer. Especially if you
start to feel the symptoms of burnout, it's important that you find the
level of engagement that allows you to participate at a level that is
feasible for maintaining progress toward the project's goal. Lead by
example -- but make sure it's someplace you, and others, actually want
to go! This could be a good time to revisit the group’s roadmap and see
if you can figure out and clarify to others what concrete goal you're
working towards. Remember that you can also change the "landscape" by
making it easier for other people to get involved -- for example, by
explaining what you're trying to do in a clear manner. Be on the look
out for opportunities to step back, watch, and listen. Try to be mindful
of phases when active or quiet involvement would be more helpful to the
individual and the group. It's also helpful to let anyone who has taken
on a facilitation role know if you're stepping back temporarily. Then,
when the time is right, step back in and get to work!
**Challenges**: Even though your project may be very important, you
won't always make it go better by working harder.
> **Alvin Toffler**: If overstimulation at the sensory level increases
> the distortion with which we perceive reality, cognitive
> overstimulation interferes with our ability to 'think.'
If you notice yourself caring about the outcomes more than other
participants, investigate why this is. Are you all affected by the
outcomes in the same way? Working smart requires you to focus on your
goals, while relating to others who may have a different outlook, with
different, but still compatible goals.
**What’s Next**: This pattern catalog has been rewritten in a way that
should make it easy for anyone to add new patterns. Making it easy and
fruitful for others to get involved is one of the best ways to
redistribute the load (compare
the[Newcomer](http://peeragogy.org/practice/heuristics/newcomer/)
pattern).
# creating_a_guide.md
**Definition**: Meaning-carrying tools, like handbooks or maps, can help
people use an idea, collecting content and stories.
**Problem**: When the idea or system is only “newly discovered”, the
associated meanings may not be well understood, and indeed they may not
have been created. Even if a topic is only “personally new”, it can be
hard to find ones way around.
**Solution**: In such a case, the process of creating the guide can go
hand-in-hand with figuring out how the system works. Thus, techniques
of[knowledge cartography](http://knowledgecartography.org/) and[meaning
making](http://www.hitl.washington.edu/publications/r-97-47/two.html)
are useful for would-be guide creators.
**Example**: We started the Peeragogy project by collaboratively making
an outline for the Peeragogy Handbook. We recommended this
handbook-making practice to others, as a way to learn collaboratively
and build a strong group.
**Challenges**: Remember that “the map is not the territory,” and
map-making is only one facet of shared human activity. For instance, a
pattern description can be thought of as a “micro-map” of a specific
activity. These maps are not useful if they are divorced from practice.
**What’s Next**: We've been talking with collaborators in the Commons
Abundance Network about how to make a Pattern Language for the Commons.
One of the challenges that arises is how to support ongoing development
of the Pattern Language itself: a “living” map for a living territory.
We're refining the Peeragogy Pattern language and template as a seed for
this.
# discerning_a_pattern.md
**The Definition**: Discerning patterns helps us build our vocabulary or
repertoire for peer-learning projects. (The classic example of an
architectural pattern is “A place to wait” -- a type of space found in
many architectural and urban design projects.)
**The Problem**: We might notice an underlying pattern if something
repeats, and if we're paying attention. However, unless we make a record
of the patterns we notice, others cannot will not learn from our
experience, and with time, we'll forget what we learned.
**The Solution**: Writing down patterns achieves at least two things: it
helps us pay attention and notice patterns in the first place, and it
provides a concrete summary of collective experience that is relatively
easy for others to engage with and extend. Once a pattern is detected,
give it a title and write down how the pattern works.
**Challenges**: People may not be in the habit of writing down patterns
that they observe, and they are not likely to do it if the task is not
made easy and painless. Some projects that use the design pattern
methodology have developed detailed templates to gather information, but
this then needs to be processed by experts. We've tried to use a simple
template that is not much different from what you'd find in any short
textual abstract, to help make it easy to contribute new patterns.
Understanding how a given pattern relates to other patterns already
listed in in the catalog -- or to the wider context -- is not something
that can be easily encapsulated with templates. But it is still well
worth trying to express.
**What’s Next**: What do the patterns we've observed say about the
self-selection processes of the group? For instance, it's possible that
a widespread interest in organic gardening, say, may indicate the
participants are oriented to cooperation, personal health, or
environmental activism. What can we learn about the Peeragogy project
from our collected patterns?
# moderation.md
**Definition**: Moderation seems to have a double meaning: there's
moderation as in moderation in all things and moderation as in keeping a
discussion going smoothly. Actually, both of them are about the same
thing.
**Problem**:
[Participation](http://peeragogy.org/organizing-a-learning-context/participation/)
in online forums tends to follow a "power law," with vastly unequal
engagement.
**Solution**: If you want to counteract this tendency, one possibility
would simply be for the most active participants to step back, and
moderate how much they speak. This is related the the [Carrying
Capacity](http://peeragogy.org/patterns-usecases/patterns-and-heuristics/carrying-capacity/)
pattern and the [Misunderstanding
Power](http://peeragogy.org/practice/antipatterns/misunderstanding-power/)
anti-pattern: check those out before you proceed.
**Examples**: Occupy Wall Street used a technique that they called the
“[progressive stack](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_stack).”
There are lots of other strategies to try.
> **The Co-Intelligence Institute**: Why is a fishbowl more productive
> than debate? The small group conversations in the fishbowl tend to
> de-personalize the issue and reduce the stress level, making people's
> statements more cogent. Since people are talking with their fellow
> partisans, they get less caught up in wasteful adversarial games.
**Challenges**: In a distributed project, there are many
side-conversations, and it is impossible (and would be undesirable) for
any one person to moderate all of them. The difficulty occurs if one of
these conversations becomes uncomfortable for one or more participants,
for whatever reason. Rather than depending on one central moderator,
it's useful for everyone in the project to be aware of the principles
underlying effective moderation, and apply them together even in small
side-projects.
**What’s Next**: We recently ran a Paragogical Action Review to elicit
feedback from participants in the Peeragogy project. Some of them
brought up dissatisfactions, and some of them brought up confusion. Can
we find ways to bring these concerns front-and-center, without
embarrassing the people who brought them up?
# newcomer.md
[](http://peeragogy.org/practice/newcomer/unicode-fool/)
**Definition**: Unless there is a new person to talk to, a lot of the
"education stuff" we do could grow pretty stale. Many of the patterns
and use cases for peeragogy assume that there will be an audience or a
new generation of learners.
**Problem**: Some of the problems are well summed up with a quote:
> **Régis Barondeau**: I joined this handbook project late, making me a
> "newcomer". When I started to catch up, I rapidly faced doubts: Where
> do I start? How can I help? How will I make it, having to read more
> than 700 posts to catch up? What tools are we using ? How do I use
> them? Etc. Although this project is amazingly interesting, catching
> the train while it already reached high speed can be an extreme sport.
> By taking care of newcomers, we might avoid losing valuable
> contributors because they don't know how and where to start, and keep
> our own project on track.
**Solution**: It is good to try to become aware of what a newcomer
needs, and what their motivations are. Another quote can illustrate:
> **Charlotte Pierce**: Joe was working a lot on the book, and I thought
> "this is interesting hard work, and he shouldn't have to do this
> alone." As a Peeragogy newcomer, I was kindly welcomed and mentored by
> Joe, Howard, Fabrizio, and others. I asked naive questions and was met
> with patient answers, guiding questions, and resource links.
> Concurrently, I bootstrapped myself into a position to contribute to
> the workflow by editing the live manuscript for consistency, style,
> and continuity.
**Challenges**: Newcomers in the Peeragogy project have often complained
about feeling confused, suggesting that our project roadmap that the
newcomer and the[roadmap](http://peeragogy.org/practice/roadmap/) may
not be sufficiently clear, and that more work has to be done the project
accessible. Even in the absence of actual newcomers, we need to try and
look at things with a "beginner's mind.
**What’s Next**: We recently revised the “How to Get Involved” page,
listing the top ten sites we use. Another reasonable thing to post would
be a top-ten list of activities, so that people can get an easier view
on the kinds of things we do in the project.
# polling_for_ideas.md
**Definition**: Polling for Ideas can happen at many junctures in a peer
learning experience. We could poll for ideas like "what's missing?",
"who might like to join our group?", and "what are the right tools and
resources for us to use at this point?"
**Problem**: We recognize that we don't always know the answers in
advance -- particularly if we're trying to come up with an answer that
satisfies other people.
**Solution**: Others might have an important or useful idea. Even if all
you can supply is the question and a context for discussion, they may be
willing to contribute these answers.
**Example**: Near the start of the project, Howard suggested that we use
the forum categories he set up, but opened the floor to other ideas, in
this way: “At the beginning, until we all know the ropes well enough to
understand when to create a new discussion forum topic and when to add
to an existing one, let's talk in this topic thread about what else we
want to discuss and I will start new topic threads when necessary.”
**Challenges**: In the Peeragogy in Action Google+ community, and in our
earlier Social Media Classroom forum, both of which have been open to
any suggestion at all, we've many different ideas appear and then roll
by without being catalogued. When you have too much data, it can be
necessary to take separate steps to organize it. At the other end of the
spectrum, people don't always respond to surveys, and you can end up
with less data than you'd like.
**What’s Next**: We've considered asking new members of the project to
do an “entry survey” as part of joining the project, to describe their
aims and understanding of what they hope to contribute. This could
establish a context of contribution, and help new members to feel like
full “peers”.
# praxis_vs_poeisis.md
19th century collage cards, care of [Nick
Haus](http://www.nickhaus.com/2010/02/afternoon-remembered-complete-with.html).
**Definition**: Peer production, as the name indicates, is about "making
stuff." And making stuff can be fun and worthwhile. But we should also
ask ourselves, how much new stuff do we really need? Is there something
around that we could already use? There's not a hard and fast answer to
this question.
**Problem**: Usually we end up working at both levels -- for example,
writing something new using an existing wiki, or creating a piece of
software that builds on someone else's API. Sometimes we have to dig
deeper, and recreate a system in a more bottom-up fashion. The main
issue at stake is to try to become clear about where you do and do not
need to start from scratch (and also, be aware of the fact that we
almost never really start from scratch).
**Solution**: A lot of "learning" is really "remix" -- that is, reuse
and recycling of other people's ideas and techniques. Understanding and
negotiating the tension between reuse and creativity is the key to the
art of remix!
**Challenges**: We've had interesting conversations recently about the
role of open source software in peeragogy. Most project participants
agree that the open source ideals are more important than strictly using
open source software for everything. Some feel that it would be best if
we create an open source alternative for any proprietary systems we use.
The debate has been an interesting and largely fruitful one: it's
mentioned here to point out that there's usually no one right answer to
“reuse” questions.
**What’s Next**: “Platform” debates can be frustrating but can also add
something to a project in the long term, since they help people become
aware of their priorities. As mentioned in
the[Newcomer](http://peeragogy.org/patterns/newcomer/) pattern,
developing a more clear picture of the activities that we engage in in
the project will help make it comprehensible to others. It will also be
useful for us to have a clearer picture of what we do, and what we make.
> **Jean Baudrillard**: "Praxis, a noble activity, is always one of use,
> as distinct from poesis which designates fabrication. Only the former,
> which plays and acts, but does not produce, is noble." [1] (p. 101)
**Reference**:
1. Baudrillard, J. (1975). The mirror of production. Telos Press
# roadmap.md
**Definition**: It is very useful to have an up-to-date public roadmap
for the project, a place where it can be discussed and maintained. The
Roadmap exists as an artifact with which to share current, but never
complete, understanding of the space.
**Problem**: Without a roadmap, there will not be a shared sense of the
project's goals or working methods. It will be much harder for people to
volunteer to help out, or to assess the project's progress.
**Solution**: Keeping a list of current and upcoming activities, as well
as goals and working methods can
help[newcomers](http://peeragogy.org/practice/heuristics/newcomer/) and
old-timers alike see where they can jump in. As we cross things off the
list, this gives a sense of the accomplishments to date, and any major
challenges that lie ahead.
**Examples**:
- In the Peeragogy project, once the handbook's outline became fairly
mature, we could use it as a roadmap, by marking the sections that
are "finished", marking the sections where editing is currently
taking place, and marking the stubs (possible starting points for
future contributors). After this outline matured into a real[table
of contents](http://peeragogy.org/table-of-contents/), we started to
look in other directions for things to work on, and created
a[roadmap for further development of the website and peeragogy
project as a whole](http://peeragogy.org/peeragogy-org-roadmap/).
- There can be a certain roadmappiness to "presentation of self", and
you can learn to use this well. For instance, when introducing
yourself and your work to other people, you can focus on highlights
like these:
- "What is the message behind what you're doing?"
- "How do you provide a model others can follow or improve upon?"
- "How can others get directly involved with your project?"
**Challenges**: Unless the roadmap is easy for people to see and to
update, they are not likely to use it. In the Peeragogy Accelerator
phase of the project, we've included a roadmap in the “behind the
scenes” version of our landing page, we're using it as a way to link to
other documents we're working on. Accordingly, people participating in
the accelerator frequently encounter the roadmap as a “first level”
object. All of this said, sometimes it's impossible to know in advance
what will happen! A roadmap that's not quite right will feel burdening.
Sometimes it's better to become more open to the unknown.
**What’s Next**: Our roadmap document, which currently includes many
sub-sections, needs refining and re-outlining. We're hoping that our
work in the Accelerator will inform the 3rd edition of the Peeragogy
Handbook, so it's useful to think about the roadmap as a table of
contents for the book. However, since we are not just interested in
writing activities, the current roadmap will develop in different ways
than the first one did. A shared roadmap is very similar to a[Personal
Learning
Plan](http://peeragogy.org/to-peeragogy/personal-learning-plan/), or
"paragogical profile". We made
some[examples](http://campus.ftacademy.org/wiki/index.php/Free_Technology_Guild#Learning_design)
of these as we worked on the Free Technology Guild, but more work would
have to be done before we have a rich ecosystem of peer learning
profiles that people can use to develop a peer learning plan.
# roles.md
**Definition**: Educational interactions tend to have a number of
different roles associated with them. Everything could bifurcate from
the "autodidact", as in, (1) Autodidact, (2) Tutor-Tutee, (3)
Tutor-Tutee-Peer, etc., until we have bursars, librarians, technicians,
janitors, editors of peer reviewed research journals, government policy
makers, spin-off industrial ventures and partnerships, and so on.
**Problem**: Even the autodidact may assume different roles at different
points in time - sometimes building a library, sometimes constructing a
model, sometimes checking a proof. The decomposition of "learning" into
different phases or polarities could be an endless theoretical task. The
simpler problem is to be aware of the roles that you and your teammates
have in the projects you're working on.
**Solution**: We've described some exercises on
“[metacognition](http://peeragogy.org/can-we-work-together/)” that you
can apply when thinking about the roles that you're taking on and those
that you'd like to take on in your project.
**Challenges**: Roles are often present "by default" at the start of a
learning process, and that they may change as the process develops. Both
of these features can be challenging, but they also present learning
opportunities.
**What’s Next**: We've listed some of the roles for which we're seeking
volunteers in the[Peeragogy.org
Roadmap](http://peeragogy.org/peeragogy-org-roadmap/): Volunteer
Coordinator, Seminar Coordinator, Usability Guru, Activities Master, and
Tech lead. As with everything else in the roadmap, this list should be
reviewed and revised regularly, as the roles are understood relative to
the actual happenings in the Peeragogy project.
# wrapper.md
**The Definition**: The wrapper role can be taken on by a project
participant who summarizes everything going on in the project, making
the project comprehensible to participants who haven't been following
all of the details.
**The Problem**: Joining the project that is already going can feel like
trying to get aboard a rapidly moving vehicle. If you've joined and then
taken time off, you may feel like things have moved on so far that it's
impossible to catch up. In a very active project, it can be effectively
impossible to stay up to date with all of the details.
**The Solution**: Charlie
Danoff[suggested](http://socialmediaclassroom.com/host/peeragogy/wiki/rolesdivision-labor)
that someone take on the "wrapper role" – do a weekly pre/post wrap, so
that new (and existing) users would know the status the project is at
any given point in time. The project's[landing
page](http://socialmediaclassroom.com/host/peeragogy/) also serves as
another sort of "wrapper", telling people what they can expect to find.
**Objectives**: In fulfilling the wrapper role, we must check the public
summaries of the project from time to time to make sure that they
accurately represent the facts on the ground.
**Examples**: In the first year of the Peeragogy project, the "Weekly
Roundup" by Christopher Tillman Neal served to engage and re-engage
members. Peeragogues began to eager watched for the weekly reports to
see if our teams or our names had been mentioned. When there was a
holiday or break, Chris would announce the hiatus, to keep the flow
going. In the second year of the project, we didn't routinely publish
summaries of progress, and instead, we've assumed that interested
parties will stay tuned on Google+. Nevertheless, we maintain internal
and external summaries, ranging from agendas to press releases to
quick-start guides. Regular meetings provide an alternative way to stay
up to date: see the[Heartbeat](http://peeragogy.org/patterns/heartbeat/)
pattern.
**Challenges**: According to the theory proposed by Yochai Benkler, for
free/open "commons-based" projects to work, it is vital to have both (1)
the ability to contribute small pieces; (2) something that stitches
those pieces together [1]. The wrapper performs this integrative
function, which is often much more challenging than the job of breaking
things down into pieces or just doing one of the small pieces.
**What’s Next**: We're maintaining a Landing Page for the Peeragogy
Accelerator, but people have said that they find the "backstage"
information about the Accelerator confusing. We need practices of
wrapping things up at various levels.
**Reference**:
1. Benkler, Y. (2002).[Coase's Penguin, or Linux and the Nature of the
Firm](http://www.yale.edu/yalelj/112/BenklerWEB.pdf), Yale Law
Journal 112, pp. 369-446.
# specific_project.md
**Definition**: Being concrete about what you'd like to do, learn, and
achieve, takes you from thinking about a topic to becoming a
practitioner.
**Problem**: It's easy to think about issues that matter: there are many
of them. The problem is figuring out what you're going to do about it.
**Solution**: Specificity is relatively important in order for things to
happen. Values -- and even metrics -- tend to be less concretely
meaningful than acts. At the same time, while actions speak louder than
words, it's important to act in a coherent way if you want to be
understood by others.
**Example**: In the January, 2013, plenary session,[Independent
Publishers of New England](http://ipne.org) (IPNE) President Tordis
Isselhardt quietly listened to a presentation about how we created the
*Peeragogy Handbook*. During the Q&A, she spoke up, wondering if
peer-learning effort in IPNE might be more likely to succeed if the
organization’s members "focused around a specific project." As this
lightbulb illuminated the room, those of us attending the plenary
session suggested that IPNE could focus the project by creating an
“Independent Publishing Handbook.” (Applause!) In the course of creating
the IPNE Handbook, peer learners would assemble resource repositories,
exchange expertise, and collaboratively edit documents. To provide
motivation and incentive to participate in "PeerPubU", members of the
association will earn authorship credit for contributing articles,
editor credit for working on the manuscript, and can spin off their own
chapters as stand-alone, profit-making publications.
**Challenges**: As often happens, you may realize that your specific
goal is great, as a goal, but too large to tackle directly. It this
case, you may have to find a smaller piece of the project to focus on.
There will, eventually, be the problem of putting together the little
pieces in a coherent way.
**What’s Next**: In the third year of the Peeragogy project, rather than
just keep working on the handbook, we've been working on building a
Peeragogy Accelerator, as a peer support system for projects related to
peer learning and peer production. Not only does specificity help member
projects, being clear about what the Accelerator itself is supposed to
do will help people get involved.
# isolation.md
**Definition**: Many projects that are ostensibly oriented towards "the
commons" nevertheless want to funnel participants into "their way" of
thinking about things. Be careful with that, it's a slippery slope to
total isolation.
**Problem**: This problem is actually dual: with a too-narrow focus,
collaboration is impossible. However, with an overly-wide focus, things
are chaotic in other ways.
**Solution**:
> **Félix Guattari**: Imagine a fenced field in which there are horses
> wearing adjustable blinkers, and let’s say that the “coefficient of
> transversality” will be precisely the adjustment of the blinkers. If
> the horses are completely blind, a certain kind of traumatic encounter
> will be produced. As soon as the blinkers are opened, one can imagine
> that the horses will move about in a more harmonious way. ([Quoted by
> Andrew Murphy](http://nine.fibreculturejournal.org/), himself quoting
> Gary Genosko)
Like the underlying problem, the solution is dual: you can avoid
isolation by becoming highly transversal -- or avoid noise and chaos by
blinkering yourself and shutting out other everything else.
**Challenges**: A moderate interpretation of Guattari's quote is that
it's good to be open, but not too open. We need to allow for
uncertainty, but not be completely vague. (See also:[Navel
Gazing](http://peeragogy.org/antipatterns/navel-gazing/).)
**What’s Next**: We recently submitted an abstract called “Escape from
Peeragogy Island” to a geography conference talking about the spatiality
of peer production. The idea behind this article is that we feel like
we've come up with something great with the Peeragogy project, but we're
going to be a bit isolated if it's not transparently useful to others.
If we can't explain why it's a great idea, then it's not entirely clear
how great of an idea it actually is.
# magical_thinking.md
**Definition**: While we could imagine an ideal information processing
system that would (magically) come with all solutions pre-built, a more
realistic approach recognizes that real problem solving always takes
time and energy.
**Problem**: Given a difficult problem, we usually want to take a
shortcut.
**Solution**: Magical thinking robs a context of its "process" or
"motion". The more completely we fall back on "traditional" modes of
doing things (including magical ones) the less we stand to learn. It's
also true that traditions and habits can serve a useful function: they
can massively simplify and streamline, and adopting some healthy habits
can free up time and energy, making learning possible. But if we try
something new and imagine that things work the way they always have
(e.g. sign up for a course and get told what to do, then do it and
pass), we can run into trouble when the situation doesn't match our
preconceptions.
**Example**: Joe Corneli's 2011 DIY Math course at P2PU went quite
badly. Students signed up hoping to learn mathematics, but none of them
had very concrete goals about what to learn, or very developed knowledge
about how to study this subject. This was what the class was supposed to
help teach. However, it seemed as if the students felt that signing up
for the course would “magically” give them the structure they needed.
Still, it's not as if the blame can be placed entirely on the students
in this case. Building a learning space with no particular structure and
saying, “go forth and self-organize!” is not likely to work, either. The
one saving grace of DIY Math is that the course post-mortem informed the
development of the paragogy principles: it was not a mistake we would
repeat again.
**Challenges**: If we already "knew", 100%, how to do peeragogy, then we
would not stand to learn very much by writing this handbook.
Difficulties and tensions would be resolved "in advance". We know this,
but readers may still expect “easy answers”.
**What’s Next**: Fast-forwarding a few years from the DIY Math
experiment: as part of the PlanetMath project, we are hoping to build a
well-thought-through example of a peer learning space for mathematics.
One of the ideas we're exploring is to use patterns and antipatterns
(exactly like the ones in this catalog) as a way not only of designing a
learning space, but also of talking about the difficulties that people
frequently run into when studying mathematics. Building an initial
collection of Calculus Patterns may help give people the guide-posts
they need to start effectively self-organizing.
**Reference**:
1. Dias-Ferreira, Eduardo, et al. "Chronic stress causes frontostriatal
reorganization and affects decision-making." *Science* 325.5940
(2009): 621-625.
# messy_with_lurkers.md
**Definition**:
> **Gigi Johnson**:(1) Co-learning is Messy. It needs time, patience,
> confusion, re-forming, re-norming, re-storming, etc. Things go awry
> and part of norms needs to be how to realign. (2) Co-learning is a
> VERY different experience from traditional teacher-led learning in
> terms of time and completion. It is frustrating, so many people will
> lurk or just step in and out, the latter of which is very different
> from what is acceptable in traditonal learning. Online learning
> programs are painted with the brush now of an "unacceptable" 50%
> average non-completion rate. Stanford's MOOC AI class, which started
> out with +100,000 people, had 12% finish. If only 12% or 50% of my
> traditional class finished, I'd have a hard time getting next
> quarter's classes approved!
**Problem**:
> **Tomlinson *et al.***: More authors means more content, but also more
> words thrown away. Many of the words written by authors were deleted
> during the ongoing editing process. The sheer mass of deleted words
> might raise the question of whether authoring a paper in such a
> massively distributed fashion is efficient.
**Solution**: People have to join in order to try, and when joining is
low-cost, and completion low-benefit, it is not surprising that many
people will "dissipate" as the course progresses. The "messiness" of
co-learning is interesting because it points to a sort of “internal
dissipation", as contributors bring their multiple different
backgrounds, interests, and communication styles to bear.
**Challenges**: If we were to describe this situation in the traditional
subject/object, sender/receiver terms of information theory, we would
say that peer production has a "low signal to noise ratio", and we would
tend to think of it as a highly inefficient process. However, it may be
more appropriate (and constructive) to think of meanings as
co-constructed as the process runs, and of messiness (or
meaninglessness) as symptomatic, not of peer production itself, but of
deficiencies or infelicities in shared meaning-making and "integrating"
features.
**What’s Next**: What comes out of thinking about the anti-pattern is
that we need to be careful about how we think about “virtues” in a peer
production setting. It is not just a question of being a “good
contributor” to an existing project, but of continually improving the
methods that this project uses to make meaning.
**References**:
1. Tomlinson, B., Ross, J., André, P., Baumer, E.P.S., Patterson, D.J.,
Corneli, J., Mahaux, M., Nobarany, S., Lazzari, M., Penzenstadler,
B., Torrance, A.W., Callele, D.J., Olson, G.M., Silberman, M.S.,
Ständer, M., Palamedi, F.R., Salah, A., Morrill, E., Franch, X.,
Mueller, F., Kaye, J., Black, R.W., Cohn, M.L., Shih, P.C., Brewer,
J., Goyal, N., Näkki, P., Huang, J., Baghaei, N., and Saper,
C.,[Massively Distributed Authorship of Academic
Papers](http://altchi.org/submissions/submission_wmt_0.pdf),
*Proceedings of Alt.Chi*, Austin Texas, May 5–10 2012 (10 page
extended abstract), ACM, 2012,
2. Yochai Benkler, and Helen Nissenbaum (2006). "Commons-based Peer
Production and Virtue." *Journal of Political Philosophy* 14.4 :
394-419.
3. Paul Kockelman (2010). "Enemies, parasites, and noise: How to take
up residence in a system without becoming a term in it" *Journal of
Linguistic Anthropology* 20.2: 406-421
# misunderstanding_power.md
**Definition**:
> **Wikipedia**: Zipf's law states that given some corpus of natural
> language utterances, the frequency of any word is inversely
> proportional to its rank in the frequency table. Thus the most
> frequent word will occur approximately twice as often as the second
> most frequent word, three times as often as the third most frequent
> word, etc. [1]
Related formulations, called power laws, model the [size of
cities](http://www2.econ.uu.nl/users/marrewijk/geography/zipf/index.htm),
and describe [energy use in
animals](http://pricetags.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/kleibers-law-growth-and-creativity-in-cities/)
and social network effects. Creativity and other social network effects
-- like crime -- are more prevalant in large cities. Power laws also
describe the forces governing [online
participation](http://shirky.com/writings/powerlaw_weblog.html). But it
is easy to forget this.
**Problem**: How many times have we been at a conference or workshop and
heard someone say (or said ourselves) "wouldn't it be great if this
energy could be sustained all year 'round?" Or in a classroom or peer
production setting, wondered why it is that everyone does not
participate equally. "Wouldn't it be great if we could increase
participation?" But participation in a given population will fall off
according to some power law (see Introduction to Power Laws in [The
Uncertainty Principle, Volume II, Issue
3](http://www.theuncertaintyprinciple.danoff.org/v2i3.html)). It would
be an illusion to assume that everyone is coming from a similar place
with regard to the various literacies and motivations that are conducive
to participation.
**Solution**: It can be tempting to adopt a "provisionist" attitude, and
say: "If we change our system we will equalize participation and
access."
**Challenges**: Power laws are an inherent epiphenomenon of network
flows. If you can adjust the way the way the network is shaped, for
example, through
[moderatation](http://peeragogy.org/practice/moderation/), then you may
be able to change the "exponent" in the power law. But even so,
"equality" remains a largely abstract notion. Note, also, that
participation in a given activity tends to fall off over time. It's easy
to imagine writing a hit song or a best selling novel, but hard to pull
this off, because it takes sustained effort over time. See the
anti-pattern [Magical
Thinking](http://peeragogy.org/antipatterns/magical-thinking/).
**What’s Next**: As Paul Graham wrote about programming languages --
programmers are typically "satisfied with whatever language they happen
to use, because it dictates the way they think about programs" -- so too
are people often "satisfied" with their social environments, because
these tend to dictate the way they think and act in life. Nevertheless,
if we put our minds to it, we can become more “literate” in the patterns
that make up our world and the ways we can effect change.
**References**:
1. [Zipf's
law](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zipf's_law&oldid=575709945).
(2013). In *Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia*.
2. Graham, P. (2001). [Beating the
averages](http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html).
# navel_gazing.md
**Definition**: The difficulty breaks down like this:
1. Certainly we cannot get things done just by talking about them.
2. And yet, feedback can be useful, i.e., if there are mechanisms for
responding to it in a useful fashion.
3. The associated anti-pattern is a special case of the prototypical
Batesonian [double bind](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind),
"the father who says to his son: go ahead, criticize me, but
strongly hints that all effective criticism will be very unwelcome"
[1], p. 88.
**Problem**: Criticism is not always useful. Sometimes it is just
"noise".
**Solution**: It's tempting to create “open” systems that inadvertantly
replicate the double bind -- by being open to criticism, but unable to
act on it effectively.
**Challenges**: A long list of criticisms that haven't been dealt with
is maybe better than no communication at all, but it's also a tell-tale
sign of deeper dissatisfaction. It's better to make sure you have enough
bandwidth (see [Carrying
Capacity](http://peeragogy.org/patterns-usecases/patterns-and-heuristics/carrying-capacity/))
for dealing with a given class of problems and issues. Adjust your focus
accordingly, but be careful (see
“[Isolation](http://peeragogy.org/antipatterns/isolation/)”).
**What’s Next**: We have hinted that, in this project, [effective
criticism is very
welcome](http://peeragogy.org/how-to-use-this-handbook/)! But
understanding what makes criticism effective is, in general, still a
research problem.
**Reference**:
1. Deleuze, G., and Guattari, F. (2004). *Anti-oedipus*. Continuum
International Publishing Group.
# stasis.md
**Definition**: Actually, living beings are never really in stasis. It
just sometimes feels that way. Other anti-patterns like
[Isolation](http://peeragogy.org/antipatterns/isolation/) and [Navel
Gazing](http://peeragogy.org/antipatterns/navel-gazing/) have described
different aspects of the experience of feeling like one is in stasis.
Typically, what is happening in such a case is that one or more
dimensions of life are moving very slowly.
**Problem**: When important things are moving slowly or not at all, and
when they are mostly or entirely out of your control, this can be
frustrating.
**Solution**: It's tempting in this case just to be upset and to feel
disempowered.
**Example**: We were not able to get programming support to improve the
first version of the Social Media Classroom, since all developer energy
was allocated to the next version of the system. It becomes frustrating
if a specific small feature is desired, but unavailable.
**Challenges**: Of course, it's very unpleasant to be frustrated all the
time. The hint to pick up is that there is always some dimension on
which you can make progress. It might not be the same one you've been
working on -- you might have “over-harvested” that niche (see [Carrying
Capacity](http://peeragogy.org/patterns-usecases/patterns-and-heuristics/carrying-capacity/)).
**What’s Next**: We're working on a new handbook chapter about the
relationship of open source software and peeragogy. This will include
some more specific ideas about ways of making change.
# stuck.md
**Definition**: Knowing how to make good use of "weak ties" is often
seen as a “personal strength”.
> **Nancy Darling**: [S]trong and weak ties tend to serve different
> functions in our lives. When we need a big favor or social or
> instrumental support, we ask our friends. We call them when we need to
> move a washing machine. But if we need information that we don't have,
> the people to ask are our weak ties. They have more diverse knowledge
> and more diverse ties than our close friends do. We ask them when we
> want to know who to hire to install our washing machine. [1]
The question is less to do with whether we are forming weak ties or
strong ties. We can be "peers" in either a weak or a strong sense. The
question to ask is whether our needs match our expectations!
**Problem**: In the peeragogy context, this has to do with how we
interact.
> **One of us**: I am learning about peeragogy, but I think I'm failing
> to be a good peeragogue. I remember that Howard once told us that the
> most important thing is that you should be responsible not only for
> your own learning but for your peers' learning. [...] So the question
> is, are we learning from others by ourselves or are we helping others
> to learn?
If we are "only" co-consumers of information then this seems like a
classic example of a weak tie. We are part of the an "audience".
**Solution**: Perhaps especially in an online, mediated, context, it is
possible to stay at the level of "weak ties" -- although you will not be
able to draw on the benefits that "strong ties" offer. (Cf.
[Isolation](http://peeragogy.org/antipatterns/isolation/).)
**Challenges**: This strategy reveals its problems directly, if you ever
need help moving your washing machine.
**What’s Next**: If we are actively engaging with other people, then
this is a foundation for strong ties. In this case of deep learning, our
aims are neither instrumental nor informational, but "interactional".
Incidentally, the "One of us" quoted above has been one of the most
consistently engaged peeragogues over the years of the project. Showing
up is a good step -- you can always help someone else move their washing
machine! -- as is constructive self-critique.
**Reference**:
Nancy Darling (2010). [Facebook and the Strength of Weak
Ties](http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/thinking-about-kids/201005/facebook-and-the-strength-weak-ties),
*Psychology Today*.