This pad builds on [[paragogy-okcon/rev.16046]], created by [unnamed author] & Charlie & Charles & Joe
#paragogy #draft #copy
(~) OAD Definition of Theory: the·o·ry n. (pl. -ries) a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something
ABSTRACT
Peer-to-peer (P2P) learning has been recorded since at least the 4th century before the common era. Moving forward it has become particularly ubiquitous in the present. This is partially thanks to new computing tools that allow peers to learn harmoniously and efficiently. Paragogy is a theory of P-to-P learning. Its current iteration is independent of technology, although many of our examples will be from the modern digital age. Paragogy demands peers take learning seriously. This paper outlines paragogy's relevance, challenge, offer and connections to other theories. Next it gives examples of paragogy implemented, then the authors implement it themselves critiquing their experience working at The Peer 2 Peer University. All theories have limitations which we attempt to see, before closing with a vision and what may lie ahead.
This paper describes a new theory of peer-to-peer learning and teaching that we call "paragogy". Paragogy's principles were developed by adapting the Knowles principles of andragogy to peer-based learning contexts. Paragogy addresses the challenge of peer-producing a useful and supportive context for self-directed learning.
- 1-sentence dictionary definition for this paper?
- disciplined social practice?
- within that when do you become an expert?
- < 140 character summary of each section ... seed hashtag discussion
- come up w/definitions for the context of this paper of "peer" / learning / certain terms
Agenda for Friday: plan to get things done by Sunday -
- What do we mean by theory? Why? (and/or take it out)
- 1 hr today and then figure out where we're at
- Maybe add some pictures
- key message section (basic)
- work on abstract (bonus)
make sure we got all our ref's clear (Darwin check, AA??)
RELEVANCE
Consider what happens when you take a trip to visit an old friend in their home city. As old friends, the two of you are peers and equals. Yet your friend will be required to teach you about the locale: where to eat, what museums are worthwhile, what night spots are fun, etc. In this context your friend is more knowledgeable and teaches as you learn. If visit had been to your city instead, these roles would be reversed. This is a simple example of peer learning, a widespread subcategory of social learning <Bandura>, and perhaps as ubiquitous as communication or thought itself <Jung, Chapter 1>.
We use the term paragogy to characterize the study and practice of peer learning. The growth and evolution of opportunities for learning outside of formal institutions in recent years has made a theory of peer learning of timely importance. A recent article from Fast Company, an influential business magazine, illustrates the point: "Just as more and more employees are expected to have basic multi-media skills--the ability to blog, for example, or to shoot images or videos on their smartphones--so will they be expected to have the basic ability to share knowledge with their peers." (2011)
But strategies for paragogy can be found by looking back through human history. For instance, in 1645 peers came together in London to "refuse to believe things that weren't demonstrably true." (Shirky, 2010, p. 136) Initially they called themselves the Invisible College. They "put chemistry on a sound footing in a matter of a couple of decades" and "established the many of the norms underpinning the scientific method" (Shirky, 2010, p. 137). As time went by they and "its members formed the core of the Royal Society, a much less invisible organization chartered in 1662 and still in operation to this day." (Shirky, 2010). Cf. http://royalsociety.org/about-us/history/
Somewhat less recently in 380 B.C.E. Socrates and Meno had a discussion about virtue, where they took turns questioning and answering one another.
Socrates. And I, Meno, like what I am saying. Some things I have said of which I am not altogether confident. But that we shall be better and braver and less helpless if we think that we ought to enquire, than we should have been if we indulged in the idle fancy that there was no knowing and no use in seeking to know what we do not know; that is a theme upon which I am ready to fight, in word and deed, to the utmost of my power.
Meno. There again, Socrates, your words seem to me excellent.
Soc. Then, as we are agreed that a man should enquire about that which he does not know, shall you and I make an effort to enquire together into the nature of virtue?
SOCRATES: Then, Meno, the conclusion is that virtue comes to the virtuous by the gift of God. But we shall never know the certain truth until, before asking how virtue is given, we enquire into the actual nature of virtue. I fear that I must go away, but do you, now that you are persuaded yourself, persuade our friend Anytus. And do not let him be so exasperated; if you can conciliate him, you will have done good service to the Athenian people.
Though it was not called by the same name, the Invisible College, Socrates and Meno were implementing paragogy as they did work that would be used by humans hundreds or thousands of years later. Drawing inspiration from them, we offer here our paragogical principles for your examination and critique.
THE CHALLENGE
«Nobody needs to teach rural communities about "group effort" and "self-help".»
So begins A. T. Ariyaratne's essay on Rural Self Help. He continues:
«The real question, therefore, is to examine what are the constraints that exist inhibiting the expression of their group effort and self-help qualities designed to improve food and nutrition levels, clothing, shelter, health, sanitation, education and cultural life?»
It is in a similar spirit that we look at peer learning. Everyone is capable of developing effective learning strategies and techniques, but they do this subject to certain constraints: in particular, the constraint of not yet knowing. Peer learning is different from other forms of collaboration, the proverbial "barnraising" for example, in which it can be assumed that the persons involved know how to build barns.
Critical questioning like Ariyaratne's can help people practice paragogy "I asked them what their biggest need was [...] I got the people to analyse their problem themselves assuring that there was nobody except themselves able to solve this problem." Much like the "Socratic method", the virtues we learn are the ones we practice <Benkler+Nissenbaum>. In practical terms, the theory of paragogy aims to provide a system for quickly learning about and adapting in relation to the resource landscape.
WHAT WE OFFER
Thus far we have five principles, describing "candidate" best practices for peer learning.
- Changing context as a decentered center
- In paragogy, we recognize that we are not merely teachers or learners, but are actually co-creating the learning context as a whole. Context is always flexible and paragogy asks learners to cultivate a “shared context in motion” with their peer group to best support their learning. It is this central role of working on the learning context that makes paragogy different from other theories of learning.
- Meta-learning as a font of knowledge.
- Thomas Friedman suggested that "learning to learn" will be a requirement for success in our "flat" 21st century world. Putting this into practice requires people to work smart: "'Working more hours' does not necessarily mean 'producing more output'."Footnote: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrum_%28development%29#Meetings> Scrums in Agile Software development . Figuring out what works (evaluating both process and outcomes) is a critical aspect of learning to learn.Footnote: See comments by Dr. Marjorie King in a discussion about paragogical evaluation on P2PU http://p2pu.org/general/node/15138/forums/25213#comment-10331)
- Peers are equals, but different.
- Learners must not seek only confirmation of what they already know, they must confront and make sense of difference as part of the learning experience. In peer a learning context, the peers co-create the "learning opportunities". They do this particularly by asking and answering questions, but also by suggesting readings, and generally bringing their experience to bear.
- Words under this principle don't seem to relate to the principle itself.
- current version definitely doesn't emphasize "equal" or what it means to be a peer... it does talk about learning experience, but that's a different issue - maybe revise principle accordingly?
- Learning is distributed and nonlinear.
- Learning does not go in a straight line, and paragogy stresses that individuals need to be comfortable being open to new directions while incorporating relevant knowledge, and still stay focused enough to actualize their learning goals. Involvement in shaping the learning context is one way to make the "nonlinear overhead" explicit, and this can ultimately support learning better than alternative models where learning is "taken as given".
- Realize the dream if you can, then wake up!
- Paragogy is the art of fulfilling motivations when this is possible, and then going on to the next thing. To use an example from literature: James O Incadenza from Infinite Jest successfully studied and then excelled in a variety of fields: "His record up until then indicated that he remained obsessed with something until he became successful at it, then transferred his obsession to something else. From military optics to annular optics to entrepreneurial optics to tennis-pedagogy to film." (IJ p. 949) Chances are, unlike Incandenza, you may struggle to actualize your dream, in which case mind these words from Samuel Beckett: "Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Samuel_Beckett
CONNECTIONS
Closely related theories
The first point of connection is to andragogy, Malcom Knowles's theory/practice of adult education. In succinct form, Knowles's five principles of andragogy are as follows: (1) that adult learners are self-directed; (2) that they bring a wealth of experience to the educational setting; (3) that they enter educational settings ready to learn; (4) that they are problem-centered in their learning; and (5) that they are best motivated by internal factors. <Blondy> points out both uses and challenges to each of Knowles principles of andragogy. For example, "Cheren stated that while learners may express a desire to be self-directed in their learning, most lack the required understanding of learning necessary to be self-directed and thus need guidance and encouragement in the learning process."
The paragogical principles were first conceived by turning Knowles's principles on their edge. In short, unlike andragogy (which takes the point of view of the adult educator), pedagogy (which studies teachers teaching learners) and unlike heutagogy (which focuses on self-directed learners), paragogy looks at the learning environment as a whole. Accordingly, in addition to theories about learning, paragogy connects to other theories of an "ecological" form. In particular, we draw from Nishida's notion of basho ("shared context in motion"), a concept that helps us look at how a context constrains or supports different types of (inter-)actions, and about how we can (re-)shape the contexts we find ourselves in.
We survey other related themes on ecology and learning in the subsections that follow.
View from Human Ecology
Bateson's Ecology of Mind integrates ecology with learning, and has several parallels with paragogy.
- The interaction between parts of mind is triggered by difference. [Peers are equal but different]
- Mental process requires circular (or more complex) chains of determination. [Learning is distributed and nonlinear]
- In mental process the effects of difference are to be regarded as transforms (that is, coded versions) of the difference which preceded them. The description and classification of these processes of transformation discloses a hierarchy of logical types immanent in the phenomena. [Meta-learning is a font of knowledge.]
In peer learning, one of the key concerns is how peers organize together to be more efficient than independent minds acting alone. The impetus to produce firms and post-firm commons have been discussed by Coase and then, following on, by Benkler <Coase, Benkler>. Some of the relevant factors are discussed in the theory of Strategic Niche Management. <Geels>, <Kemp>. Three factors are said to influence niches (which could be populated by institutions, but also individual learners or informal organizations like courses or study groups):
- (1) innovations build up internal momentum
- (2) changes take place at the landscape level
- (3) destabilizations of regimes provide opportunities for niches
Within niches (where, again, any group of peer learners would be an example), momentum is thought to accumulate by:
- (1) coupling expectations: agreeing on a social contract, co-creating the syllabus
- (2) articulation/learning: actually do the work, develop conceptual structures that are relevant, discuss them
- (3) by network formation: what are the (social) outcomes via network effects?
I feel like there needs to be a tie-up sentence here: explain again why this is here (should probably be made more clear above too).
View from learning theories
One current relevant reference is Karpike and Roediger's "The Critical Importance of Retrieval for Learning". The point of this article is that repeated testing is apparently a better way to learn than just studying, or (per the follow-up paper by Karpicke and Blunt "Retreival Practice Produces More Learning than Elaborative Studying with Concept Mapping"), more effective than just sketching out concepts.
Nevertheless, it would be impossible to argue that "conceptual structures" are unimportant for learning. Indeed, as de Liddo et al. indicate, developing facilities that help people make their learning interactions explicit is vitally important. More generally, accomodating the way people think is key: here we can also look to the notion of "A strong affective filter (e.g. high anxiety)" <Krashen http://www.sdkrashen.com/articles/eta_paper/index.html> inhibiting learning, and the willingness of some learners to take vital risks.
On that note, learners need real motivations. In the words of Alfie Kohn, "Ask not what will motivate my students, but how they are already motivated."
IMPLEMENTING
To show that paragogy is neither a pure abstraction nor a trivial practice, we will explore three concrete examples of paragogy implemented.
The first example comes from the US Military's After Action Review (AAR). The AAR is a systemized chance for everyone to review what just happened in a training exercise, to learn from it going forward. While one person may play the role of an evaluator in such a review (and despite the fact that solidiers are differently ranked), the review itself is still amongst peers, and critiques the operations of the unit as a whole. The four steps in an AAR are:
- Review what was supposed to happen (training plans).
- Establish what happened.
- Determine what was right or wrong with what happened.
- Determine how the task should be done differently the next time.
Any peer group learning anything would be wise to draw on the US Army's AAR and implement a similar formal review as part of their own learning practices.
Another example of paragogy in action came from Charles Darwin and the "Gentlemen Naturalists". Later in his career Darwin stated, "I formerly spoke to very many naturalists on the subject of evolution, and never once met with any sympathetic agreement." [...] "I tried once or twice to explain to able men what I meant by Natural Selection, but signally failed." This would be similar to sending an e-mail out to mailing list on a topic you of interest. Negative feedback is better than none at all and can form part of a good long-term learning and discovery process.
Finally, one of the most successful implementations of paragogy in contemporary America is Alcoholics Anyonymous. A peer support group where peers come together to accomplish a common goal, namely to stop drinking. In the words of co-founder Bill W.
"I think that the gentle Russian prince who so strongly advocated the idea felt that if men were granted absolute liberty, and were compelled to obey no one in person, they would voluntarily associate themselves in the common interest. AA is an association of the benign sort the prince envisioned." Bill W. in A.A. Comes of Age (AA World Services, Inc., New York, 1957), page 224. via http://www.lewrockwell.com/white/white45.html
Within AA, peers have a common goal: learning how to be sober. Within this context, evaluation is (painfully) clear: learning was successful if the new learner stays sober, and isn't if not. A couple of points from their "benign anarchy" model could be applied in other learning scenarios.
- There is a clear sense that participants are part of the group, and are equal to the other people in the group.
- AA doesn't and can't provide everything: this gives a clear sense of the distinction between pedagogy and paragogy.
Despite being an "anarchy" the peer learning group succeeds by helping people to stay sober every day.
KEY MESSAGE
The paragogy principles provide guidelines on best practices for building successful peer learning experiences. In this section we will bring the principles together with lessons learned from our work at P2PU. We evaluate these experiences, mainly focusing on our experiences in courses, using guidelines drawn from Defining Open Source Software Project Success and the theory of deliberate practice. We have selected these sources because they are directly relevant to learning in a peer context.
Changing Context as a decentered center :: Structure and semantics
This relates to the <de Liddo> paper about conceptual mapping (flow charts, bubble diagrams, system design principles: maybe include an example picture here): the idea here is to map out a peer learning system and to say how it works. Each writer has tried to organize multiple 6-week courses. If you measure success by group participation and production they have been failures. Yet, we, the organizers, have learned lessons about what does or does not make groups work. Do like an AAR of 1 course? Intersplice comments form other courses? ... Good place your post-mortem DIY Math...... This approximately typical for the P2PU experience.
Note: Go through P2PU experience and then use other papers to evaluate.
- Review what was supposed to happen (training plans).
- P2PU Tagline: "P2PU creates a model for lifelong learning alongside traditional formal higher education. Leveraging the internet and educational materials openly available online, P2PU enables high-quality low-cost education opportunities. P2PU: learning for everyone, by everyone about almost anything."
- We organized several courses (Collaborative Lesson Planning Fall 2010, Winter 2011; DIY Math; Math for Game Designers; Open Governance and Learning; Shaping P2PU)
- People were supposed to learn stuff, we could go through these and collect any statements about desired outcomes. E.g. in Collaborative Lesson Planning, people were supposed to produce
- The goal is that teachers in different parts of the world teaching the same topic to similar levels of students will post lesson plans online and then reflect on what works and what does not for them. Subsequently they will comment on what other teachers have done as well. <http://p2pu.org/general/collaborative-lesson-planning>
- OGL pretty explicit expectations each week:
- Establish what happened.
- Paragogy was born <http://p2pu.org/general/node/5574/forums/9415#comment-4054> in the context of the Collaborative Lesson Planning course, in reaction to the fact that participation in DIY Math was almost non-existent <post-mortem link>.
- Joe & Brylie published lesson plans on Wikiversity, which were collaboratively edited by Charlie, Joe & Bryile.
- The second round of mathematics courses were designed better from a pedagogical standpoint (and benefitted from our initial ideas about paragogy), but participation was still low. By contrast, OGL had low participation, but the conversations between core members at least lasted the entire session.
- Determine what was right or wrong with what happened.
- DIY Math(+CLP) Right: Paragogy is an evolving theory coming out of these experiences
- DIY Math Wrong: Course wasn't completed.
- CLP Right: Got a couple new lesson plans published and collabaritvely improved. My personal reserach into the subject was ... forced me to do a lot of work I wouldn't of done w/the formal structure.
- CLP Wrong: In two runs of the course only had participation from 2 non-organizers.
- OGL Wrong: even here, participation died out considerably. If this is the high water mark, it's not very high. Data analysis by Dan Dieboldt indicates that this happens across the board even in the "best" (most highly subscribed) courses.
- OGL Right: Katheryn Sutter (CivicSense) posted articles about Debian, bug reporting, etc. <http://open-governance-and-learning.posterous.com/debian-case-study-of-open-governance>
- 2nd gen math courses: clearer expectations, but still not enough
- Overall: the discussions on P2PU mailing lists are the one thing that seem to continue without dying out, but even so maybe it's the same people having the same discussions (this would be a pessimistic view)
- High water mark: http://p2pu.org/general/journalism (Joi Ito's earlier course)
- Determine how the task should be done differently the next time.
- call people who don't show up: expectation that they'd be there next time and/or do the work. Organizers need to first look in the mirror, be more realistic about how much time and effort is necessary to get people to do something, especially w/o extrinsic motivation.
- Joi Ito acknowledging the unfairness of comparison, Joi was likely extremely available and in touch with everyone throughout.
- SO: don't organize a course unless you plan to do the work anyway yourself no matter what happens - the course can only improve stuff that's going to happen anyway (major failure of 2nd gen math courses... so do PlanetMath the way I would want to use it for real: put link to something relevant).
- Courses that didn't work out so well could benefit from following Charlie's CLP model.
- Go into the course w/an attitude that its a test-run and you're working towards a perfect course (Socrates truth?) at some point in the future, and .... in terms of evaluating: "what did you make/learn that will improve the next run of the course?" (Beckett)
---------------------------------
(the level of activity) : some people were much more active than others, but most were not active; people leaving every week was sort of demoralizing. Data and analysis would be nice to get more specific, we don't have time right now.) ... quick e-mail to Dan? (later).
(number of developer and user contributions): Power law. The non-equal distribution is important, but the fall-off in participation is disappointing.
(keep things sufficiently scoped): It is a lot of work to set up a course, and it can be a wasted effort if people don't want to take it! Course organizers are to date embodying the 2nd principle more blythe about it,
METALEARNING IS A FONT OF KNOWLEDGE :: Transparency accountability and tone
Seed: "old hands" need to be interested in what will work better for newcomers. Similarly, everyone can be "kept accountable" through user profiles -- which describe learning. Any commments about P2PU organizers include us.
- Review what was supposed to happen (training plans).
- Support for new course organizers was offered in a p2pu-new-course@googlegroups.com mailing list, and in a course, and is now available in a "Help Center" on the new platform. Lots of other P2PU community resources help, like weekly phone calls and a Q&A issue tracker
- Members taking courses were supposed to "learn" how to contribute helpfully (across all of P2PU, but I think this was especially suported in CLP - Charlie modeled good behaviour in that course)
- Establish what happened.
- Members were not at all kept accountable within learner profiles. There was no down-side to not participating. (Joe's beef: P2PU core members are "holding" themselves accountable by having weekly meetings and having an open mailing list, and through a new organizational structure and so forth, but this behavior was not necessarily transferrable to new members or communicated through the organization)
- Determine what was right or wrong with what happened.
- Wrong: People at the top are doing a lot of work, and its not being realized or imitated at a high-enough level to
- Right: People at the top are doing a lot of work!!!!
- Enough is happening to keep the ship above water, and the project is still moving forward.
- they do stay reasonably open to comments and criticisms from outside, even if there is no "formal policy" to get them to change course.
- Determine how the task should be done differently the next time.
- Follow Wikipedia's lead "If you don't follow community norms, you are not allowed to play."
- Give non-top members more specific roles? Roles they can *lose* if they do not follow-through on their assigned tasks? This is a difference from P2PU's culture from MediaWiki's strongly structured culture.
- If better support can be offered for organizers and participants in the future (e.g. via paragogy principles) that should improve outcomes.
------------------------------
(time to close bugs or deal with issues): Development is going real well now that there is an employee on the job (Zuzel). High-level criticisms are just harder to deal with.
(knowledge production): Not much. Some best practices are accumulated in the wiki. This is something could be a nice goal for P2PU some definable OER that's created and is 100% complete. Maybe our paper is a start!!! (e.g. <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/This_quantum_world>)
(individual reputation): It works for organizers and board members) who can put this on a CV. One of the participants asked me for a recommendation in her profile on P2PU. This mechanism of getting credit could be supported better and discussions are under way about that (cite Phillip's blog post). P2PU "organizational star" is rising. Evidence = money. How can this spread? (And where does the money go: would be useful to know.) ... ***This could allow P2PU the organziation to be a model for new users to follow. P2PU gets money, says we will do this, and then after says what happened with the money."
(stretch): it worked for us. And this paper is our example of dogfood eatin' and CBPP practicing. And we earnestly yearn for peers to critique us.
PEERS ARE EQUALS BUT DIFFERENT :: Reporting problems
Seed: I think that the code-related part of "reporting problems" is pretty much solved. I'm way less sure about other stuff (high level infrastructure, design, culture issues, individual difficulties in courses...).
- Review what was supposed to happen (training plans).
- Discussions about P2PU happen in the community mailing list. Bug reports go into the Lighthouse tracker.
- Place for an abridged fishery? ... as in that's what supposed to happen @ P2PU. People are supposed to be participating at different levels
- Establish what happened.
- High-level stuff is chaotic, probably because people are involved -- there isn't really a sense of "the central topic for today"
- additionally its part of our role as lower-rung "soldiers" to complain about the "higher-ups" even though we are all peers,different roles/expectations.
- most participants with problems just left (of course, they weren't obliged to stay)
- Determine what was right or wrong with what happened.
- R: The ship is still sailing. And despite our critiques many people seem to be genuinely excited about what's happened and where its going.
- W: It's so nonlinear that it's hard to tell what's going on (even for me and I don't have ADD) Cf. your P2PU "what's happening" thing.
- Determine how the task should be done differently the next time.
- Topic of the week? Measurable learning that happened this week?
- In a traditional university there are a lot of ways to resolve problems or disputes short of dropping out. In P2PU the evidence doesn't seem to indicate a whole lot of "constructive problem solving" for many participants (some however provide good models).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(developer (instructor, participant) satisfaction): people who left can't be that "satisfied" ... but of course many folks stick around and do enough "good" that new people keep signing-up. People who want to participate in admin-level stuff can do this and get practice at it. User/contributer experience is discussed but this is a producer community and you had be satisfied with what you DO or don't come crying, becuase you have enough power given to you to realize your dream w/P2PU and if it's not realize it's your fault, or if it's not happening there, maybe P2PU can still help you figure out how to do it elsewhere.
(individual job opportunities and salary): Seemingly zip. But obtusely, this gives me more "credibility" within a field I'm
(feedback that's not there otherwise <Flow>): Like the Darwin example: even something kind of uncomfortable can be a good learning experience: for people with eyes open there's lots of info here. Almost everything gets some reply (unless you waste your words)... this seems to uniquely characterize learning communities????
LEARNING IS DISTRIBUTED AND NONLINEAR :: design considerations
How can we build a place for people to talk about the project in a sensible way? In the "Shaping P2PU" group at new.p2pu.org, the aim is to get P2PU folks to eat their own dog food (to minimal success so far, but the platform is still growing).
- Review what was supposed to happen (training plans).
- People are supposed to assemble their own resources (blogs, OER, technologies) and they are supposed to run courses using these. And then participate somehow (forums, mailing list if they have trouble). With an end goal of knowledge being built for all course members.
- Establish what happened.
- That's pretty much what happens, but it's hard to measure whether/how knowledge is gained.
- Determine what was right or wrong with what happened.
- Right: The organization is striving to handle the complexity of this, and that's a good thing.
- Wrong: it is unpleasant that there's so little quality control... though it's also hard to see immediately how to do it better, full marks for trying.
- Determine how the task should be done differently the next time.
- we are trying the new platform which has MUCH more P2PU direct involvement in hacking, and has feedback coming in from community members
- and P2PU is becoming a nonprofit, which will provide some other more formal structures (even if they don't eat their own dogfood, they will eat something)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(time between releases (do we have a rapid stretch/churn pulse?)): development is a yes! They have a course set up for people to learn how to contribute to the platform. (platform can either make it harder or easier for peers learning. so far, been neither, more _experimental... _chaotic... _more participation in development_____ ?)
- there are weekly meetings!!! Scrum style?
(practice a lot with variations but in a focused way)... quarterly cycles, it would be great to get more feedback on the things that I need to work on (e.g. writing clarity)... I want to practice what I need to work on in a more disciplined fashion ? Can P2PU support this? Open question.
-> implement Beckett
REALIZE THE DREAM IF YOU CAN, THEN WAKE UP :: high level roadmap
There is no "Declaration of Independence from Formal Education" (yet).
- Review what was supposed to happen (training plans).
- Establish what happened.
- Has not been realized (perhaps it would be unrealistic to do right away... in fact that's probably why it's a "vision statement")
- it's not that clear whether the vision has shifted or just digressed
- Determine what was right or wrong with what happened.
- R: Haven't gone in opposite direction. Haven't done anything to *hurt* the vision? They've probably done a lot to help it - especially in terms of empirical evidence (beyond what we report here!)
- W: Vision not communicated well to members. No evaluation has occurred (or if it has, this hasn't been communicated). Compare that thing about JUMP Math http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/04/18/opinion/fixes_jump_graph1/fixes_jump_graph1-popup.jpg -- so in this sense it's a little unclear what has happened, I mean, no one has really condensed a statement (until this is pub'd AFAWCT).
- Determine how the task should be done differently the next time.
- Make an explicit roadmap, publicly visible and do regular (quarterly, open/public) assessment of quality / about progress toward vision (and refine vision as needed)
- Paragogy provides a way to gather more data in a coherent form that forms part of a critical body of work.
--------------------------------------------
(achieved identified goals): not yet, but the project is still young; it does seem to be OK at achieving the milestones/objectives that it sets -- however these are not strongly linked to high level goals in a clear way
(movement from alpha to beta): yes
(good goals consider process): we hope to contribute to that
LIMITATIONS
As important and ubiquitous as peer learning is, other styles and theories of learning have their place. While new parents do learn a lot, young children inarguably learn more; for young kids, socializing is important, but it is clearly no substitute for parenting.
Older students may not always be ready to be strong peer learners either: consider the design for an introductory college course in philosophy. The standard thinking is that "honors student" might prefer a student-led seminar, and that others would find this unproductive and would get more out of a traditonal lecture/homework model. We see no reason to challenge the standard assumption here.
Aside from these limitations to peer learning, like any theory, paragogy has its limitations. "There is nothing more gray, stultifying, or dreary than a life lived inside the confines of a theory." (Lanier) Further, like any other technology, the usefulness of a theory depends on how it is used: it's not magic (boyd). Paragogy stands ready to grow and improve as it is tested in practice and developed further in empirical studies, but it also needs to be ready to get out of the way. For example, one edge case for paragogy would be the highly independent learners and artists whose peers are spread out distantly through space and time. Maybe it is best for these people to continue to live the creative dream and refuse to wake up (Kayne West).
VISION
Reflecting on the historical nature of higher education and the possibilities for new media solutions, Martin Weller writes:
"Nearly all of the modern attributes of a university flow from this centralised model: the authority of the professor, the filtering of knowledge through recognised outlets, the length, structure and subject matter of courses, the assessment procedures and the means through which knowledge is shared. It is thus no easy task to adopt a decentralised model, since it will require massive procedural, economic and professional change in higher education."
We would argue that new media are not simply a disruptive force in the traditional educational landscape: they also provide a chance to understand learning better. What is learning? -- this seems like a good question for Socrates. An eminently practical rephrasing of the question is: "What do we need to know, and what do we need to be able to do, to work effectively and to lead full, happy lives?" Our vision, then, is of increasing knowledge about learning as it connects with productivity. We hope that paragogy can form part of a critical approach, part of a benevolent and widely distributed "pyriamid scheme" for peer producing better support for learning (similar to Linux or Wikipedia). We are happy whenever bug reports for learning are being submitted and addressed.
SYNTHESIS (TBA)
- the changes in technology provide an opportunity at the niche level of learning science to develop an expanded microgenetic analysis of learning
- Ranciere (sp) provides one example of relevant critical thinking relative to socrates
- The name "paragogy" is a (bilingual) pun on the notion of production.
- Transversality: how much do different levels talk? <Guattari>
- Example to follow: RMS responding to individual e-mails?
We recognize that the answers will be heterogeneous. But there will be some common trends as well, which we have discussed at a high level in this paper. The idea of a "Microgenetic analysis of learning" that is able to "measure change as it occurs" is quite compatible with our vision, and compatible with the idea of "learning analytics". But we feel that the understanding of all different types of learning at all levels needs to be understood better, and that's where we hope to take paragogy as time goes. (E.g. very specific examples in action maybe adding empirical examples [mathemeatics/language schools founded on paragogy].)