This was a unique program. Instead of just going to one program then the next, you truly synthesize lots of different information and learn. This is exactly how Diana Oblinger and the other event organizers kept referring to the event – it was intended to be a learning experience, and not just a conference. That held true for me and I think most all the other participants.
Regardless of the topic at hand, I think this model could be applied in many other settings. Here are the highlights of this approach, in no particular order.
- Cohort: Participants are divided into groups, who engage in a number of activities as a cohort. Usually I abhor that kind of group work, but as I reflect back to other conference experiences, I was being asked to work wtih complete strangers on a topic that may or may not truly resonate for me. In this case, the cohort got to know each other fairly well by the end of the two action-packed days, and the activities were well designed, so there wasn’t a lot of just sitting and staring at each other. Bonus – I really got to know the people in my cohort. You could tell that was happening at other tables, and there was some fun banter between tables that reflected a friendly, low-key competition that helped groups bond even more. The more we bonded, the more likely we were to engage in discussion. Our table – Table 8 – make a commitment to take what we learned back to our campus and hold brown bag events…and we even promised to report back to each other during and after. Real application of learning! See our Table 8 blog for more info. One person from Florida said she was going to be in Wisconsin later in the year, and the two folks from Wisconsin at the table invited her to campus to reconnect.
- Short & Sweet: No single activity or session lasted more than 45 minutes. Perfect.
- Student Perspective Videos: We saw a few of these each day, interspersed within the various large group sessions. Not only were they a good visual break, but hearing straight from the students truly added context to our discussions.
- Project Parlors: One of the greatest aspects of this event. I can’t count how many times I’ve been to a conference and diligently gone through the program listings and marked the sessions that seemed relevant…only to get 10 minutes into a session and figure out it really wasn’t a good fit for me. And there you are, stuck for the next 90 minutes. Project Parlors help you avoide this. One Day 1, each cohort rotates through to see a 15 minute preview of all the concurrent breakout sessions that will be held on Day 2. I suppose that for the presenters it means they have to present 6 times and not just once. And it means that they are competing with each other, hoping we will come back on Day 2…but that could be a great motivation to put a little extra work into it. For the participants, Day 2 rolls around and you get to go to two of the sessions that you liked best from the Day 1 previews. And again, only 45 minutes each.
- Group Reflections: After each general session presented to everyone (or maybe after two), the cohorts went through a guided reflection exercise. Again, usually something I don’t care for. But so well done at this event that I found everyone really participating in great discussions. Participants are provided a Reflection worksheet for each time this activity was conducted to guide the conversation at your table (your cohort).
- Carousel: The subtitle of this activity was “Generating Ideas and Action” and it is accurate. The Table 8 initiative noted above came out of this activity. This is the last activity of the event. Several specific questions that get at application of new knowledge on our subject matter were put up on big flip charts. )Since our event focus was “Being Net Savvy” the questions were (for example) – What concrete activities can be developed to help students become more net savvy? How does net savviness improve faculty scholarship? What are the characteristics of being net savvy?) From here, each cohort worked their way around the room to consider those questions, and had 9 minutes to brainstorm the answers. The cohorts went back to their home table, and synthesized the question originating at their home table and boiled it down to the 2 or 3 most salient concepts. Then these were shared around the room. The results will be posted to the event website, which is a nice transition to the next item below!
- Documentation: As noted in a separate posting, this event generated lots of ideas – from the large full group, from the cohorts, and from individuals. All of this is being documented and will soon be available to the participants and anyone else who might stumble across it. This is a key element of this model, in my opinion.