Dave, this seems exactly right – asking people to self-select what it is they want to best represent what they’ve learned rather than giving them a predefined target of what that looks like seems the logical correlative to the network learning apporach.

The issues that of course raise their hoary heads mostly come from the formal learning side – how is it “fair” if people are assessed on different types of submissions, and, as you’ve maybe encountered, the real investment of time it takes to authentically engage with a mass of different submissions as *individual* pieces.

Neither of these seem like legitimate reasons for giving up on the idea, but for this to get more purchase in institutional settings (if indeed that is what we want – not clear that is so) there needs to be some recognition of the challenges, why they are worthwhile, and what can be done to ameliorate them.

Anyways, I apologize if my last set of comments felt dismissive; I think what is obvious to some is not to all, and I too often assume everyone is at the same point in the conversation. You were posting partly in the context of a course that has people at all sorts of places in their understanding, bringing all sorts of different contexts, and in that regards it was an important distinction you were making.

Cheers, Scott