After class last week Eric told me how badly I messed up.

Ok, so he didn’t say it quite so bluntly (!), but his point was right on. For instance, we lost the pottery page.


What he liked about the class was that I established “a task and a standard.” I thought I knew what he meant but I asked to be sure. The “task” was to establish the various working groups for designing and making our course wikipages. The “standard” was that everyone has to participate in two of these groups. So far, so good. The problem was when I went off into that funky diagram of how I was beginning to envision our endproduct.

In this instance, Eric did not tell me something I did not already know. It was clear from the questions that I had tried to jump a step ahead, too far beyond the group’s present resources. What Eric told me that I didn’t know – and needed to learn! – was the effect of introducing the idea that I have some kind of schema for what the eventual webproduct “ought” to be. Basically, Eric’s observation was that I had changed the rules; this is what threw people off. Damn. I didn’t mean to do that!  Not in relation to content!

He supported his argument by referring to the opening page of our course wikisite, explaining that from the complete open-endedness of “what will YOU create” I had suddenly indicated that there were expectations. 😦 His critique is legitimate. Double dxxx. Can I un-do this damage? Sigh – no, that effect has already occurred. The best I can hope for, now, is to repair the situation, to turn this event into an advantage, to use the learning to evolve a better idea.

Let me know what you think?

I’ll do the integration between what you generate and the group dynamics I perceive are implicated by (our) history or otherwise imagine the possibility of a meaningful link. (At least as the first stage, prior to asking you to take up a similar endeavor after you see some examples.) What does this abstract idea mean in practical terms? As you post material in/from your groups about your topics (be they content or process), I’ll insert links into your text. In some instances (?), depending upon what you actually post, I may add a bit of text myself (you know, actual words) to give context for the link – – – but probably not. I mean, I’ll try to avoid doing that so as to leave the link itself to generate context. Maybe I can write a commentary that I post elsewhere (in the wiki? in a blog?) so that some information about my logic exists as a resource? I would probably decide to do this on a case-by-case basis, or upon request.

For this to work as pedagogy (yes, this is still a learning environment!), you will need to have your group’s work posted in the wiki by 28 April (our next class session since the 21st is a holidays).

Hmm. Time to get to work learning wiki-speak! Wikimedia for Dummies: A User’s Manual