The CFG concept is about creating a structure for people who don’t already have one to analyse and reflect upon each others’ work. THIS is a critical friends group – right here. We take the time to reflect upon each others’ thoughts, but instead of working within a facilitation-based model, our topics for reflection evolve with the group. Jeff established the topic for reflection, and now we have a group who’ve had plenty of personal reflection time to pause and consider each other’s thoughts.

The deprivitisation of practice occurs every time we click ‘publish,’ and make an active choice to RISK sharing our comments with one another. I have a question: why is CFG primarily aimed at teachers? Shouldn’t all of our learning community members become part of this kind of dialogue (including students)?

As for physical proximity, what about ‘mental proximity?’ The only one of you I see physically is Jeff, but I know Karyn through her comments, feedback, and what I read of her work on her blog. I see this as a CFG that has a lot of potential to create great change, regardless of physical proximity. The ‘facilitators’ are the developers and the blog creators.

A final note on the ‘deprivitisation’ of practice’ – how does a CFG achieve this within the privacy and protocol of the group? This is limited ‘deprivitisation,’ because it doesn’t extend beyond the boundaries of the CFG in order to publically share it with anyone else beyond the limits of the group. Transparency and a “2.0″ model of CFG might just bring us closer to where we need to get as a body of educators who are really passionate about moving beyond the 90s. Are we seeking group therapy, or do we want to move towards a completely constructivist approach where ideas and expression move into the public domain?

Time to move from the “safety net” to just… the net?

Jeff Utecht is an American educator currently working as the technology specialist at the Shanghai American……

Anyway, I agree! A while back George Siemens said he wasn’t interested in communities of practice. I know what he was getting at, but he was referring to closed circles. I reckon my blogroll is my CoP, and George is on it! The people I see as being part of my CoP might not necessarily see me as being part of theirs, and that’s fine. These are the people I learn from, whose posts I comment on, with whom I collaborate in the business of moving our craft forward. And how much richer is the range of experience than if I limited it to the four other people in my role at work?

As I said in response to Tony Karrer’s big question of the month (should all learning professionals be blogging?) I have learnt more during my year as a blogger than in the several preceding years. I have been commended and slapped down, consulted and insulted, advised and chastised, welcomed and rebuffed. Some people have seemed more like critical enemies than friends, but it has all served to help me develop.

I agree with you completely on this. I’ve been involved in CFG and PLC work for the past four and a half years (and am also a trained CFG Coach) and I do believe that the online edublogging community is a form of CFG or PLC.

Here are some additional thoughts that I have to expand on the points you made in this post:

Deprivatization of Practice — CFG and PLC work is all about transparency of our work and I have found that blogging has caused me to become even more transparent in my work than when I was/am involved in face-to-face CFG and PLC groups.

Physical Proximity — My experience has revealed to me that blogging can be just as effective (in developing deep, reflective learning) as face-to-face CFG or PLC meetings.

However, I think you make the best point in your final paragraph — blogging can be as effective as a traditional CFG if the blogger is able to have a comfort level with being transparent on the web and with receiving “warm” and “cool” feedback on their posts.

Thanks for a great post!
Stephanie