ONPhD Challenge now live on P2Pu

[Peter Rawsthorne]

This P2Pu Challenge is now live. I made the edits that came from our discussion and I am now going to start working through it all... figure there is about 60 hours of work, I'll adjust this number once I finish the challenge. A few things I am thinking;

I like the challenge graphics to be of open outdoor spaces... this way we can ask participants to post similar images of the open.
I'm going to think about the badge image. I know it can be hosted with P2Pu... Leigh do you want me to build upon the badge idea you already had?
What about stipends for qualified people taking on the supervisory or mentorship role?

Be Well Everyone, thanks for your inputs, enjoy your gifts...

Peter
 

[Leigh Blackall]

I have no pre conceptions for the badge design Pete.. only to bare in mind that it is one in a series for ONPhD.

And of course, I too love imagery of landscape, non figurative.

[Leigh Blackall]

I finally took myself to the Wikiversity page to update the Candidacy section.

There, we had notes on the sorts of tasks we thought would be important:

1. Identifying and listing past research projects and publications - or equivalent
2. An expression of intent to undergo an ON PhD that demonstrates an understanding for the criteria for an ON PhD (documented online, openly, iteratively, etc (needs development)
3. An outline of the intended project for the ON PhD, and evidence that the candidate knows the present situation and context for their project (acknowledges prior work, has the seeds of a question and its justification - such as understanding the projects epistemological and ontological bases) 
4. Evidence of ready offers of supervision from qualified researchers. Letters supporting their plan, evidence of reviews given on prior work, etc
5. Evidence of a preparedness to follow ethical boundaries in research work, with a process that obtains formal clearance deemed ideal

The tasks that are on P2PU vary from these a bit. I've replaced the Wikiversity ones with the P2PU ones so they're consistent, but can we take a moment to consider the differences?...

1. Describe your learning history - This is a cumulative description of all the works (formal and informal) you have completed to be considered toward your candidacy for an ONPhD  
2. Identify your domain of study  - The described domain of study should be both broad and focused. This is to allow others to get a sense of both the knowledge domain and your focus.  
3. Detail your contribution - What of considerable significance are you going to contribute to your chosen subject domain of knowledge? 
4. Methodology - Completion of a PhD requires a significant reseach project or major contribution to your chosen knowledge domain.  
5. Skills and Knowledge Development - Completion of a PhD level of knowing also requires the development of other related skills and knowledge.  
6. Engage the community - How are you going to engage the learning community and your learning network  
7. Seek supervision and endorsements - Identify the people in your learning network who are going to assist on your learning journey and help you get to finished..

--
--
Leigh Blackall

+61(0)404561009

[Peter Rawsthorne]

Leigh,

Thanks for the reference to the tasks on the Wikiversity site. I reconciled the differences. In a few weeks I will read over the tasks (with a new set of eyes) and make some edits. That is if someone else doesn't do it first.

It is great to see this P2Pu challenge up and running. Lets hope we have a few complete the challenge in the next few months. I'd like to issue a couple of badges indicating OnPhD Candidacy... I'm going to put together a few sample badges, put them out there for input.

Be Well...

[Leigh Blackall]

Ok great. Good to know the old list was referred to, and again. 

I'm enjoying going through the tasks in the P2PU challenge you've prepared Peter. Thanks to me having a PhD page in my Wikiversity User page, it has been quick and easy to build that out for the tasks. The P2PU challenge has certainly offered the structure I needed (not too tight, not too broad) to progress. But that's from someone who is comfortable using Wikiversity and a personal blog as a kind of portfolio and notes space. 

[Yves]

I prefer the  second statement of candidacy. I think the supervision should be left open (not asking for evidence) since we don't have that already ourselves.I think if each person can try to find someone in his/her personal learning network we can have a pool of volunteer supervisors who can be made to the disposition of the group. Since you (guys) have been active in Wikiversity, Wikieducato, etc and working at different universities can you find present and /or former colleagues who might be interested in doing this.?