Group Dynamics – Know how to satisfactorily reconcile different perspectives especially if a group member takes a strong stand. I observed three approaches. A)  As the stakes were low in the course, there was nothing to gain by disagreeing which might create unpleasantness and tension. Member A always conceded and went with the ‘flow’ to maintain a collegial working relationship.  B) Individual opinions and views should be respected. Member B would not back down and proceeded with a contrarian view in the final report. C)The believe that ‘Mixing red and blue would produce a more beautiful colour, purple.’ That is not always true. Member C would try to find a middle-ground between dissenting views. It was not always successful as ‘neutralization’ sometimes weakened the proposition.

Work Processes – how to optimize quality, time and resources. Each of the topics (like open network learning, blended learning, etc) was broad and it took some time to unpack so that all members would have the same understanding of the concept before moving on to the application. This led to paralysis by analysis. Too much time spent on divergence and insufficient time on convergence. As such, the output was not of the quality that we would like.

Knowledge and Skills – As I did not have much prior knowledge in the subject matter (which was the reason why I enrolled in the course!), the learning had been steep but substantive. I learnt a great deal about the principles and best practices ONL, PBL, CL, blended Learning and will certainly apply some of them in my own course design. I was exposed to various digital tools and platforms for the first time such as Miro, Prezi, Padlet, Lucid.