It is great to get feedback and the NSW Learnscope folks set up a wiki for feedback. As I'd expect, quite diverse. A perfect example of "designed for a group, experienced as an invidual, even when we are in the same room. Here are the comments as of this evening. Some made me smile. Some were hard to read, as you might expect. It would be great if I could have a conversation with some of the commentors to understand better.
I'm sensitive to the comment about an "American full of herself" (ouch) and puzzled about "elitist" (which I can't quite figure, so if someone has insight, bring it on - this is not a response I've had before). I can understand the rub about bringing in an American when there is so much cool stuff going on here. I think there is a risk just based on the cultural position of the US (not a good one). Our assumptions are powerful. It can be a tough spot to be in. I wonder what the effect would be if we did not know each other's nationality??
The one that cracked me up was the label of techno-hippy. That's a new one! There has to be a visual to go with that one. (Plus, I did dress hippy dippy that day. The outcome of few clothes on the road!)
Nancy White’s session
* Interesting, energetic
* Started well but went on for too long, became boring
* Long, elitist
* Ok – food for thought
* Provided inspiration for possibilities with relevant examples and sources
* Interesting, topical, relevant and well presented
* Entertaining and innovative
* Brilliant – very thought provoking – thank you so much, kept me engaged
* Engaging and interesting
* Comprehensive review of e-learning resources in community environment
* Ok – not practical enough – more practical egs needed
* Interesting and entertaining
* Interesting and food for thought for beginner e-learners
* Good overview of many of the issues we are all dealing with
* Interesting and interactive
* Interesting good speaker
* Really interesting but a bit too long to keep focused. Nancy is a great presenter!
* Interesting for a while then got too much details – where did it end up? We got lost.
* Fantastic – the best. Excellent speaker
* Excellent speaker
* Great concepts – ade me think about things in a different way. Loved the SMS polls
* Sort of interesting but would eb good with an Aussie flavour
* Great well presented and informative
* Some thoughts and concepts that had not considered before. Great how split into 3 parts
* Poor – where’s the innovation? Boring!
* Rather long – not particularly stimulating
* Too long – I can’t concentrate that long
* Excellent entertaining presenter. It was good split up into 3 parts with food breaks which gave you a breather and time to refresh yourself
* Interesting to get another perspective
* Informative and thought provoking
* Good – a little over my head though
* Hard to follow – esoteric. I didn’t warm to her and felt she presented poorly which immediately creates a barrier to an audience (read ‘me’). She was disjointed in my opinion. Not clear on outcomes.
* Nice pace/content/flow – would like some key aspects available on LS NSW wiki please
* Invigorating. Very interesting dialogue on 3 tensions
* Really good – reflective of many of our experiences, shame about choccy
* Too much chocolate
* Comfortable and entertaining – not much to think about but enjoyed
* Fantastic – her delivery style and encouraging participation by audience was great
* Stimulating and engaging
* Loved the SMS engagement – new to me
* Kept inspiring lots of conversation and reflection
* Excellent – educating and entertaining
* Didn’t really meet expectations. Didn’t feel Nancy delved into topic as deeply as I thought she might. Could have explored the tensions in a more focussed way
* Techno-jargon above my knowledge but got a good feel of the tools
* Why do we need an American who is full of herself to tell us what we already dabbled in during our LearnScope projects?
* Very interesting – I like the concept and think it is true if you have interaction you will have social building, looking forward to new version without glitches
* Nancy was great but why did we approve our mobile when we didn’t receive any messages? Felt excluded from the activity. No-one on our table got any messages – was a little frustrating – what was the point of the email and response at rego desk?
* Food for thought. Good presenter
* Absolutely excellent!! Inspiring, informative and innovative
* Entertaining and eloquent
* Interesting – interaction via SMS great. Interaction is still the key esp with technology
* I’m still pondering the meaning of ……..? Spoke too quickly at times and the questions were not clearly explained prior to group discussions
* An inspiring speaker – I was a bit disappointed as I had registered my mobile beforehand (via an email) but I didn’t get messages – a very engaging and entertaining speaker
* Very engaging and inspiring
* Great to be able to spend time chatting with her. She’s walking the talk.
* Great presentation, good to see we are in synch globally
* Good, informative
I've been thinking more about the SMS experiment. The issue that I noticed during our experiment (and mentioned to Alex) was that we must attend more closely to the intent of deploying such a tool, not just for the novelty of "we can do it." I don't think I took/made/found the time to think as thoughtfully about the questions we used and how to blend it into the experience as I would have liked to. That would be something I'd attend to if I used it again. The second were the technical glitches, like the questions going out all at once rather than timed out, and the fact that some folks who did register did not get the messages. It is so easy to create exclusion unknowingly. So it was a very useful experiment and I learned a lot. Personally, I was happy to take the risk, but I would have like to have done a better job. So it goes.
That said, I'm happy going out of the predictable comfort zone. The risk is worth it.
Thanks for the feedback!
(Edited Nov 1 to fix link)