« Back to Peeragogy.org



This pattern describes a way to make the project meaningful.


We have been working together for a while now. We have maintained and revised our pattern catalog, and we are achieving some of the “What’s Next” steps associated with some of the patterns.


image Attention: due to limited energy, we need to ask: where should we set the focus? image Interest: new experiences catch our attention. image Meaning: shared history makes things meaningful.


Not all of the ideas we’ve come up with have proved workable. Not all of the patterns we’ve noticed remain equally relevant. In particular, some patterns no longer lead to concrete next steps.


In order to maintain focus, is important to “tune” and “prune” the things we give our attention to. We can connect this understanding to any actions undertaken in the project by asking questions like these:

(1) Review what was supposed to happen. (2) Establish what is happening/happened. (3) Determine what’s right and wrong with what we are doing/have done. (4) What did we learn or change? (5) What else should we change going forward? [9], after [10].

Other review processes have been formalized, including the design review in architecture and the postmortem in theater and other teamwork settings [7,8]. The review process may benefit from having an experienced facilitator on board [6]. As current priorities become clearer, we decide where to focus. Anything that isn’t receiving active attention should be moved to a Scrapbook. This may encompass:

In the Peeragogy project, alongside our patterns we initially maintained a collection of antipatterns (like ‘Magical thinking’) but the next steps coming from these seemed particularly convoluted and abstract. So, we archived them.1 problems – without known solutions – right up front in the Introduction to the Peeragogy Handbook [9]. Other proto-patterns include ‘Onboarding’ and ‘Don’t quit your day job’, which arose in our review of this paper (see “Emergent Roadmap”, below). Our back-catalog includes academic papers [14] and a thesis [5]. Everyone can maintain their own personal Scrapbook as along with a communal one. Furthermore, you don’t need to limit yourself to your own creativity: include interesting ideas from other sources (see Reduce, reuse, recycle). In some cases a designated Wrapper may have to do further work to elicit and organize contributions.


We want to keep attention focused on the most relevant issues. If a pattern, task, or concern does not lead to concrete “next steps” at the moment, sufficient time for reflection may offer a better understanding, and it may prove useful and actionable in a different context.


Judicious use of the Scrapbook can help focus project participants’ attention on current concerns, without losing grasp of items of interest. The currently active pattern catalog is leaner and more action-oriented as a result. If the Roadmap shows where we’re going, it is the Scrapbook that shows most clearly where we’ve been, and collects the observations that are most meaningful to us.

Example 1

The history of the Wikimedia Foundation, and of Wikipedia, are maintained as wiki pages.2,3 Wikipedia details outstanding issues, in the form of critiques.4 available to help facilitate the process of vetting proposed fine-grained changes to articles.5,6 typically discussed at the Village Pump, and there are mechanisms in place for settling disputes.[^7^],7

Park: Christ’s Pieces, Cambridge, UK

Example 2

Just as a university campus grows and changes over time, future peeragogues will be drawn to new problems and patterns. They will trace new paths and build new emergent structures (Figure [christs-pieces]).

What’s Next in the Peeragogy Project

After pruning back our pattern catalog, we want it to grow again: new patterns are needed. One strategy would be to turn the whole Peeragogy Handbook into design patterns.


  1. J Corneli, A Keune, A Lyons, and CJ Danoff. 2013. Peeragogy in Action. In The Open Book, Kaitlyn Braybrooke, Jussi Nissilä and Timo Vuorikivi (eds.). The Finnish Institute, London, 80–87.

  2. J. Corneli. 2012. Paragogical praxis. E-Learning and Digital Media 9, 3: 267–272. Retrieved from http://paragogy.net/ParagogicalPraxisPaper

  3. J. Corneli and C.J. Danoff. 2011. Paragogy. Proceedings of the 6th Open Knowledge Conference. Retrieved from http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-739/paper+5.pdf

  4. Joseph Corneli, Dorota Marciniak, Charles Jeffrey Danoff, et al. 2014. Building the Peeragogy Accelerator. Proceedings of OER14: Building communities of open practice. Retrieved from http://metameso.org/~joe/docs/Building_the_Peeragogy_Accelerator.pdf

  5. Joseph Corneli. 2014. Peer produced peer learning: A mathematics case study. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/40775/

  6. Richard P Gabriel. 2002. Writer’s Workshops and the Work of Making Things: Patterns, Poetry. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.

  7. Norman Kerth. 2001. Project retrospectives: A handbook for team reviews. Dorset House.

  8. John Mathers, Sue Illman, Angela Brady, and Peter Geraghty. 2013. Design Review: Principles and Practice. Retrieved from http://www.rtpi.org.uk/media/11214/dc_cabe_design_review_13_w__1_.pdf

  9. H. Rheingold and others. 2015. The Peeragogy Handbook. PubDomEd/Pierce Press, Chicago, IL./Somerville, MA. Retrieved from http://peeragogy.org

  10. US Army. 1993. A Leader’s Guide to After-Action Reviews (TC 25-20). Retrieved from http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army/tc_25-20/tc25-20.pdf