The one thing *is* no-one-thing!

"DS106 was/is successful because the people involved were/are CARING and SUPPORTIVE. There is no better pedagogy than that. Jim may be outgoing and gregarious in personality. But that is not what he did to make it work. He and the others supported and cared for the people. The end." Todd Conway


  1. In reponse to Todd Conway's view of DS106, Chris Lott states that this is 'sufficient for explanation, not so much for replication" and (equating teachers to musicians) he reminds us that there are "musicians who “hit it big” while others of equal dedication and talent don’t". He also reminds us that "the world many of us work in [is one where] we are expected to try to figure out the parts that aren’t wholly subject to the vagaries of chance."
  2. Goeff and I started our Twitter conversation with his opening line,
  3. Yes, much planning and set up time. Absolutely.
  4. Rochelle and Ron joined in to speak to what did make DS106 successful and then I joined in with a different perspective,
  5. Okay, perhaps a little provocative an opening line, I accept. I guess my issue was with *exactly* as I tried to show on the tweet. Geoff joined in the spirit of inquiry and humour I appreciate,
  6. I nearly run off to make a creative edit with a reductionistic Geoff measuring DS106 skulls, but resisted and decided to play on the humour - suggesting that the measuring path was perhaps strange - not suitable to finding out the essence of DS106.
  7. In the evening we had our weekly DS106 Radio Show: The DS106 Good Spell.
  8. I referred to the conversation on the show reflecting on how tough life was for those people who are "expected to try to figure out the parts that aren’t wholly subject to the vagaries of chance" when it comes to DS106. We spoke about what is the one thing that makes DS106 what it is. I came up with one idea that I am still warming to: "perhaps the one thing that makes DS106 what it is is that there is no one thing". John Johnston referred to it a a broad church. Rochelle summed it up as not putting DS106 in a box. I was talking about this image by Andrew Forgave or Todd Conway - I always think this image offers the true essence of DS106.
  9. We can find the box full of potential but it is empty. Once you reposition your teaching to become part and parcel of the web then who is the teacher, where are the boundaries, who decides? I started DS106 as a course when I joined 'DS106 Headless '13.' There was no teacher, we filled the box ourselves. Alan Levine explains it best is a recent blog post where he reviews the DS106 ecosystem: "So yes, you can look at one offering of DS106 and see it as rather course driven. Or you could step back, and notice that it’s quite an ecosystem."
  10. Geoff comes back to explore how can something that cannot be described be repeated? I think the post above speaks a little to this question. The point is precisely that it is never repeated. In the sense that *exactly* the same course runs each time. It is never the same and it cannot be if you step back to look at the ecosystem. If your teaching is of the web not on the web then the box is pretty big and no given individual owns the box.
  11. Listen to Alan Levine talk about the on the web - of the web distinction. DS106 is of the web for sure.