A sticky idea…
In a blog post written as a pre-cursor to his 2011 Regents’ Lecture at the University of California, Berkeley he reflects on his experience to date with collaborative learning, and sets out the stall for his next project – to collaboratively create a guide to collaborative peer-to-peer learning:
I’m calling it “peeragogy.” While “paragogy” is more etymologically correct, “peeragogy” is self-explanatory. In my lecture, I’ll explain the evolution of my own pedagogy and reveal some of what I’ve discovered in the world of online self-organized learning. Then I will invite volunteers to join me in a two week hybrid of face-to-face seminars and online discussion. Can we self-organize our research, discover, summarize, and prioritize what is known through theory and practice, then propose, argue, and share a tentative resource guide for peeragogical groups? In theory, those who use our guide to pursue their own explorations can edit the guide to reflect new learning.
This idea has definitely struck a chord with me – and slightly tongue in cheek I tweeted:
Is it me, or is #peeragogy about doing learning in the way a lot of “real” work is done?
More going on
As is so often the way, I then read further to discover that someone else had not only spotted the connection but grounded it with references. Rheingold acknowledges the work of Joe Corneli and Charles Danoff, who have termed this area of study Paragogy, have co-authored a paper on it, and are writing a book. In their paper Corneli and Danoff make an explicit link between Paragogy and Peer Production.
Relating this to technology production
When I tweeted, what I had in mind were the complex loops of idea exchange implicit in any kind of technical product development (either for external customers or internal company users):
Most, if not all, of these conversations imply some sort of mutual learning:
- what sorts of things might surprise, delight or downright disappoint the customer/user
- what sort of product and business model might work
- what are the technical options
- what does the industry provide
- how can we adapt the current technology to meet the needs
- what would we like the industry to develop next
- and so on…..
it’s turtles all the way down, but a few starter questions that spring to mind are:
- does treating these processes as learning exercises lead to better performance? (and how might we measure that?)
- what support do teams need to surface learning goals around their work?
- what team and organisation culture will best support rapid learning?
- how beneficial is it to make the learning explicit?
Right now this is mostly a “lightbulb” – I need to do more thinking and have some dialogue to explore further.
if any of this strikes a chord with you, please comment.