Skip to content
Pyragogy Docs website

The Archive

3 Topics 3 Posts

Validated knowledge, curated resources, and the living handbook. What started as experiment ends up here when it works.

Subcategories

  • Patterns that have been tested, critiqued, and confirmed useful. Formally documented, community-approved.

    1 1
    1 Topics
    1 Posts
    Fabryundefined
    Official Pattern Documentation Template When a pattern has been tested and validated, archive it using this formal template. Before using this template, your pattern should have: Been posted in rough form in The Agora → Pattern Workshops Received community feedback and survived at least one round of critique Been tested by at least one person other than the original author The Template --- pattern-name: [2-5 words, memorable and descriptive] pattern-id: PTN-[XXX] # Assigned by maintainers version: 1.0 status: draft | community-review | validated authors: [names/handles] date-submitted: [YYYY-MM-DD] --- ## [Pattern Name] ### Summary [One sentence: what this pattern does and when to use it] ### Context Where and when does this pattern apply? ### Problem What tension or challenge does this address? ### Solution What do you do? [Clear, actionable. Numbered steps if sequence matters.] ### Rationale Why does this work? [The underlying mechanism.] ### Examples #### Example 1: [Brief label] [Context, action, result — concrete enough to be usable] #### Example 2: [Brief label] [A second example from a different domain] ### Known Failure Modes When does this pattern not work, or work badly? [Required section. At minimum one failure mode.] ### Related Patterns [Pairs well with / Can be confused with] ### Revision History [Version notes] Notes On Known Failure Modes: This section is not optional. A pattern without documented failure modes hasn’t been tested seriously. On examples: Real examples are better than hypotheticals. Anonymize if necessary, but don’t fabricate specificity. Submission Process Draft in The Laboratory → Pattern Workshops Request community review in the thread Incorporate feedback, update version Tag a maintainer when ready for The Archive Maintainer assigns PTN-ID, moves to Validated Patterns Human-AI Co-Creation

  • Books, papers, tools, and projects worth knowing. Curation means context — don’t just link, explain why it matters.

    1 1
    1 Topics
    1 Posts
    Fabryundefined
    Essential Readings for Pyragogy A link without context is just noise. These resources have context. Foundational Texts The Peeragogy Handbook Authors: Howard Rheingold et al. | Available at: peeragogy.org | License: CC BY-SA What it is: A community-written guide to peer-to-peer learning, first published in 2012 and continuously updated. Why it matters to Pyragogy: Pyragogy is a direct evolution of this work. Understanding Peeragogy gives you the vocabulary (patterns, roles, emergent structure) and the spirit (horizontal, collaborative, self-organized) that Pyragogy extends. What to read it for: The pattern language chapters. The “Wrapper” and “Heartbeat” roles are still relevant in human-AI contexts. A Pattern Language Author: Christopher Alexander | Published: 1977, Oxford University Press What it is: Alexander’s documentation of 253 recurring patterns in architecture and urban design. The methodology, not the content, is what matters for Pyragogy. Why it matters to Pyragogy: A pattern isn’t a recipe — it’s a context-sensitive solution with documented failure modes. This distinction is foundational. What to read it for: The introduction only is enough to understand the methodology. Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age Author: George Siemens | Published: 2005 (paper, available online) What it is: Siemens’ argument that learning in networked environments can’t be fully explained by existing learning theories. Knowledge, in a connected world, resides in networks of connections. Why it matters to Pyragogy: The question “where is knowledge stored?” becomes more interesting when part of the answer is “in the LLM.” Thinking Fast and Slow Author: Daniel Kahneman | Published: 2011 What it is: Dual-process theory: System 1 (fast, intuitive) and System 2 (slow, deliberate). Why it matters to Pyragogy: Many problems in AI-assisted work — over-relying on confident AI outputs, anchoring on first responses — are System 1 failures. Pyragogy practice requires deliberate System 2 engagement. What to read it for: Part I (Two Systems) and Part III (Overconfidence). Add Your Own Post resources using this structure: ### [Title] **Author(s):** | **Available at:** | **License:** **What it is:** [2 sentences] **Why it matters to Pyragogy:** [2-3 sentences] **What to read it for:** [1 sentence] Resources without context get moved to a “raw links” section. That’s the deal. Human-AI Co-Creation

  • Drafts and discussions for the Pyragogy Handbook. Peer-reviewed, community-owned, AI-assisted.

    1 1
    1 Topics
    1 Posts
    Fabryundefined
    Contributing to the Handbook The Pyragogy Handbook is community property. The process for contributing should be accessible to anyone willing to engage seriously. The Handbook Structure The handbook lives in a GitHub repository (confirm URL with @Fabry — link pending final setup). It’s organized into: Foundations — Core concepts and Cognitive Rhythm framework Patterns — Validated patterns in formal template format Practices — How-to guides and process documentation Stories — Case studies and experiment records Resources — Annotated bibliography and tool references Three Ways to Contribute Path 1: Forum-First (Recommended for New Contributors) Post your contribution in the appropriate Archive subcategory Let the community discuss and refine it When there’s rough consensus, tag a maintainer Maintainer creates the GitHub PR or helps you create one Best for: Pattern contributions, new sections, anything where community input helps. Path 2: Direct GitHub PR Fork the repository Create a branch: contrib/[your-handle]-[short-description] Make your changes following the style guide Submit a PR with clear description of what you changed and why Request review from at least one maintainer Best for: Corrections, small improvements, people comfortable with Git. Path 3: Suggest, Don’t Write Post in Handbook Contributions with [PROPOSAL] in the title. Describe what you think should be added and why. Content Standards What we’re looking for: Tested claims (not “AI can do X” — “we tried X and here’s what happened”) Clear examples (not just abstract descriptions) Acknowledged uncertainty (don’t claim more than you know) Disclosed AI assistance What we’re not looking for: Claims that haven’t been tested in practice Content that could have been written without engaging with Pyragogy specifically Attribution Contributors are credited in the handbook’s contributor file. AI assistance is noted with the human author credited as primary. This is your work. The handbook is better because you contributed. That matters. Human-AI Co-Creation