ParagogyPaper2AAR

Let's do an AAR for the Paragogy paper.

= Review what was supposed to happen (training plans). =

We wanted to write an academic paper about paragogy and present it at a conference.

= Establish what happened. =

Our paper for Learning Analytics & Knowledge (LAK '11) wasn't accepted, so we worked hard on a rewrite for the Open Knowledge Conference (OKCon 2011) which was "barely" accepted. After extensive revisions the paper looked good, and our talk was well-received.

= Determine what was right or wrong with what happened. =

At this conference, we got to meet Philipp Schmidt in person (which wouldn't have happened at the other conference, though we would have met Stian there). It was great to see him and other P2PU people at our talk. We made use of paragogy throughout the process, which massively built our expertise on the subject. We also benefitted from a lot of peer support, in particular in our run-through the night before the talk when we had the good luck to spend an hour or more talking with Jildou, Bekka, and Niels out at the bar.

= Determine how the task should be done differently the next time. =

Next time we write a paper we should try to make it easier for everyone involved, following the suggestions from both friends and critics. Actually, these writing/communication points are probably worth thinking over within the frame of paragogy! Another thing that comes to mind is that we left out the SoW Engagement ladder (see below) in our talk, but we could have easily talked about a "Disengagement ladder" to go along with Dan Diebolt's pictures.

https://wiki.mozilla.org/images/2/20/School_of_Webcraft_--_ladder_of_engagement.jpg

by https://wiki.mozilla.org/User:Matt_Thompson