At P2PU, people work together to learn a particular topic by completing tasks, assessing individual and group work, and providing constructive feedback.
This course will become read-only in the near future. Tell us at community.p2pu.org if that is a problem.
Use P2PU as a platform to study and shape P2PU.
What interpretation of words like "University" and "curriculum" applies here? How has the mission shifted or expanded over time? How effectively is it being implemented, and how will we know when aspects of it have been achived?
posted message: @Jessica: Yeah, except for the major tasks, the rest of the items should be moved to Lighthouse. I just realized that I can delete tasks, or I would have done it sooner! The major tasks have some significant work done on them by myself and Charlie Danoff in http://metameso.org/~joe/paragogy/paragogy-latest.pdf (see the "Case study in paragogical evaluation"). However, that's really just a beginning - maybe some of the responses can be refactored into new tasks here. I'll try to work on that soon.
posted message: The tasks seem more like threads for feedback. The obstacle for me is keeping up. The threads on community, dev and webcraft mailing lists are what I try to read as much as possible. Sometimes I miss something but if it ends up in Lighthouse then I'm more apt to see it, especially if it's moved to a milestone. Not sure what the solution is except maybe move some of these "tasks" on the left to tickets on Lighthouse if they haven't already. For example, the http://new.p2pu.org/en/groups/p2pu-the-course/content/permissions-co-organizer-ship/ one is in place now. Though, I don't know the answer to the question.
posted message: Does anyone want to serve as a "co-organizer" of the group, now that the platform supports this?
The tasks I see for everyone at this point is to work to make this tool useful for the purpose of "Shaping P2PU". What are the obstacles as you see them?
posted message: Hi Marisa: Great idea to include the previous comments as an attachment. Incidentally the main criticism was that our ideas weren't backed up with evidence, which I believe we've corrected this time by supplying a critical analysis of our experiences at P2PU in the core of the paper.
posted message: Hello Joe and Charles,
I will read the paper, who previous version I had already read. Did you also include the critique that you got from previous reviewers ( I remember that you submitted this paper to another conference)? It is usually a good idea to include comments from previous reviewers, because your paper might end up in their hands again... it is unlikely but it may happen!!!
posted message: Charlie Danoff and I have a new ten page paper all ready to ship off
to OKCon -- and now we learn they've moved their deadline to May 9th!
Accordingly this gives is a chance to ask you for feedback. Of
particular interest to the P2PU community will be pages 6-8 where we
apply paragogy to evaluate our last half year of experiences as course
organizers at P2PU.
And of particular interest to this study group! -- the paper is my attempt to give a first pass to the major milestones listed as our Tasks. I'd sincerely appreciate any feedback and/or ideas about how to move forward.
Paper is here: http://metameso.org/~joe/paragogy/paragogy-sunday.pdf