This blog post have four entries and structured in the following content based on the 3P-Model of learning from  (Biggs, J.B. 2003. Teaching for quality learning at university. Maidenhead: Open University Press.) This model describes three stages in the process of learning (in constructive alignment):

  1. Presage
  2. Process (Facilitating the group for Topic 3)
  3. Product (Our End result)

1. Presage

It is easy to forget that we already come into this course with knowledge. In my case, I have a diploma as a Gestalt Therapist with the expertise in organisational development. As such, addressing group, leading groups and facilitating groups are not new. In this case, I felt my knowledge as a burden – I cannot un-see what I see and know.  The need, the pain, the struggle.   In this context, we are asked to be students/learners. For this topic, I was asked to be a leader. The context did though change, where two groups were collided (and not combined!) into one – as we potatoes had just found our feet – gotten to know each other – we were suddenly four leaders in of two groups that had no time to bond very much. A very difficult set up – and – an experiment in itself – as we really had to go through all the phases again – with people dropping in and out, as well as leaders. Basically – an example of a struggling group, where there were occasions of hostility, sadness, and frustration, but also admiration, respect and in the end, some joy. I was personally very much forcing myself to be there and do my best, but it was very very hard to stay true to myself. I asked myself hundred times why I do this – and as someone claimed “the overall motivation as a clear goal for a course” aids you through any challenge.

2. Process

One of my first contributions to the group work was to provide a more structured and expanded view of the scenario (with the aim to create a better discussion).

A. Scenario comment

Recognize the value

To build and consolidate collaboration

A. Coming together (social/group process)

  • Share view
  • Have different views but appreciate differences
  • Common “knowledge base”
  • other?

B. Bring it all together

End product (visible/observable) should be:

  • Made by all (all contributes)
  • Reflect the “common” ground (all views, all differences etc )
  • Aid others (outside the group) who made it
  • Reflect the “knowledge” gathered in the group

C. Working together Collaboratively

  • Make it pleasant for all to be present
  • Make it “easy” and trustful for all to be present
  • Allow for all to speak and comment and contribute
  • All do not have to agree – it is ok to not share view!
  • Respect and respond to all (make people feel visible)
  • Do not allow people to “overtake” – but also have respect to allow someone to “unburden” – this is part of “social” respect
  • All peoples voice is worth listening to
  • All voices should be heard, seen make a stamp, be a contributor
  • Make goals clear for all
  • Show appreciation for group – and group members

D. Influence the Capacity for collaboration beyond course

  • Take part of “the “network” around the world” (being a member)
  • Exchange info (is also giving to the network – pay forward)
  • Ask for help – have a place to “ask” others
  • Make known that it is “ok” to ask others
  • Show appreciation (for the network) by sharing (your own aha moments)



We had a brainstorming on Miro (a new tool) : that resulted in three ideas from me:

A. Learning in “any way” does not suffice. For it to be “social” network learning it must be much more goal oriented, and based in scientific (validated) studies. I am worried about the references here seems very “anecdotal”, even if published in academic…. I noticed that a researchers “push” their view, based on relative loose scientific ground (as we discussed in our MDU reflection) on references.  Also realizing that I have not sufficient time (in this topic) to really make research on “how valid are our references”, as my reference page got littered with a lot of other issues, due to poor copy paste.

B. Taking the Anti-approach:

Encompassing “disbelievers”  of On-line “learning”  i.e. I really learn best on my own?!

  • It is effective to “learn/read” self-learn
  • Only some subjects  are ok in discussion
  • When does different perspective matters? Is really science about opinion
    • When knowledge is “political, anecdotal, and opinion-based/context based”..
    • New or immature “science” areas.
  • How can group learning become more than I would achieve on my own reading (ex. research papers).
    • Cover more ground (find more ref’s)
    • Highlight what is most important (compared to what I think) – a.c.a “priorities”.
  • Relating learning to “personality”.

C. How to be more “effective” learning and still allow for social in groups? 

C got elected  as one topic to expand on  and provided with the best expanded learning (from others) for me – as I posed the question.

The group also chose Two other topics that did not engage me as much or give me any more “new” insights.

–Commitment Imbalance of contribution as being the source of frustrations  in a group for students: Well, interesting as I reflect that this is a fact, and it is more interesting to hear WHY people think group work should be balanced? Nothing else in the world is fair or balanced, so why group work?

  • I come from a standpoint, the more you put in, the more you yourself get out of it. So, why should we measure this? It is more a measure – we put ourselves into things a lot, because we want to get a lot out of it:
  • Leading to the saying “Nothing worth having comes easy”. (I have never experienced that in my life – everything has been as struggle!) which means, that now some things come easier than before. But I paid my dues!

— Philosophical question: The borderline of social learning and networking?

  • Where I actually get a bit lost in this – maybe it was the format or the “rambling”. I just could not make sense of this. Too unstructured – or simply not engaging.  I am still pondering –
  • Social learning as anything you do interacting together with others (on the subject)? (that must be social learning?) and networking (what is that – if not being social – but being on-line?) assumed on the subject…. so what is the borderline? Computers and access? Still a bit lost why this is an important philosophical aspect.

3. Product (Our End result)

  • As facilitators from the start – we were aiming to structure our result in a web-page (will be our group 9 and 10 together).
  • Instead the group “took over” and decided to make a musical “chain letter” in google scholar – and just did it. Ok.
  • I did my part – taking up my “frustration” of the group work – as a part of the chain-letter. This actually was good (for me) and – I think for the group. As my group members tagged on.
  • I moved the google scholar into the web-site (as people were not listening to us) – and started our last meeting with this. The result was then excellent. Not only did each group decide we are to come together as one – but also the web-page where all contributed was great.


(why no pictures? 1. Copyright issues  so hard to copy from net… licences.. sigh. 2. I do not want to upload my private pictures 3. Learn to read – yes, this is purely a course! – not intended for any other purpose!)


(PS: can anyone teach me why wordpress puts this in a column? VERY frustrating web page tool)

Reflection of Topic 3 – Gobbets