Participants' Evaluations

1. Closing circle: One thing you appreciate; one thing that could be developed further in the future

2. Appreciative Evaluation

1. Closing Circle, 4/26/2006

	+	D
Pat	cultural, international diversity	use focus group to develop multiple views
Christine	meet experts	Work on educational activities earlier in the workshop
Leonora	non-hierarchical (age, juniority)	intellectually exhausting; build in rest time
Fabio	The push toward continuing work, keeping us engaged	preparation work, exchange information prior to the workshop, more focused, use time more effectively
Steve	possibility for connections	pursue identity in ecology
Peter	everyone created the flow	participants help develop the work prior to the workshop
Jan	We fulfilled most of the goals of the workshop	built-in break/relax time
Brendon	new teaching methods, commitment, engagement	facilitate equal participation (gven inequality among the time of talking)
Kurt	holistic experience; methods	Dual consultancy throughout the workshop
Marisa	formal + informal activities, individual + collective work	time slots can be defined after the activities are defined, more flexibility
Jo‹o	diversity, richness, unfolding, produce deliverables, continued interactions	Better preparation, proposal for actvities
Aviva	Floating thinktank; exposure to new fields; take theory to practice	How to integrate people who don't fit conventional academic structure
Dan	diversity, new ideas	not enough time to think through-> need more time to think
Yen Chu	diversity; exposed to many different ideas	let participants know we can carry the ideas forward; more preparation needed -> help structure workshop better; personal commitment on enviro problems -> bring own own cups, silverware, etc.

2. Appreciative evaluation 4/26/06

Questions (approximately):
a) What was most helpful, provocative, useful, etc during the workshop, and what was the contribution of me and others to that?
b) What could be done to create more experiences like this in the workshop?
c) What were the impacts of the workshop on you/your thinking....

a. Aviva's activity, part 1. The challenge created by the need to create other forms of expression, articulation and debate. It represents also a starting point to the workshop in terms of knowing each other and our particular contexts. It was based on a feeling of experimentation and group creation/problemization. I think it concentrates some of the different dimensions that emerged during the workshop. I had to challenge myself in putting into perspective all the experiences and perspectives that have emerged. Collectively we start to experience both individual and collective dimensions of our participation in the workshop and the ways it could be articulated.

b. There were other moments equally provoking and useful. I think that the alternating between more "formal" and more "informal" spaces of debate and interaction are good starting points. That is one of the things that makes this workshop so different.

c. There are some impacts that we can't see yet and there are so many things to think about and chew on the next days, months, ... One immediate impact was to participate in a collective that was created from so many different experiences. That will help us in questioning our safe places.

a) I found the FORUM THEATER experience to be particularly useful, although it would have probably needed a longer preparation.
I cannot really say something I did to make it positive. It is more the way I perceived it, and hopefully this contribution came out in the group discussion on how to actually stage the performance (in our case: to take the point of view of the non-humans involved in the scenario provided by Yen Chu. Which, if I have understood it correctly, was also basically not allowed by the rules explained by Jo‹o).
Given the limited time frame, I think that the contribution of other spectators has been useful in providing new and changing points of view in the general framework set by the scenario, thus creating a potentially [unclear] dialogue, in which different perspectives and/or values were placed, superimposed or confronted beyond the usual critical/confrontational mode and provided the "rational" dialogue, centered on topics or problems, rather than on situations. The multiplicity of perspectives & possibilities emerging at the same time was to me the most precious outcome.

b) Probably the interaction preceding the meeting should be made more intense, also, in a way, forcing the participants to focus on some shared interests, topics, problems, to be defined and pre-worked on collectively, to prepare the field for the activities.

c) My last observation is somehow a perspective. If we succeed in keeping & developing the links and interactions that emerged during the workshop then the investment will have been worthwhile. But the push to keep engagement beyond the temporal frame of the meeting is probably the added value of this experience versus traditional more "academic" formal of interactions, confrontation &/or dissemination of knowledge.

a. The synthesis of metaphorical associations.
Three of us did some hard work to find clusters & then went off individually to create our syntheses. While doing this I started to see the spaces not identified & envisage the opposite of some of the dimensions I labeled in my synthesis. Overall, I saw/felt metaphorical relations as a dynamic, not formal field.
Others fell in quickly to my proposal for how to cluster & didn't object, e.g., "Why should we do this?"- they were prepared to play.

b. More talking over proposed activities beforehand so the activity focuses attention on the issues that are key to the proposer.
More experience of participants in being "playful" in workshop processes.
Allow room, despite preparation, for surprises & last minute adjustments.

c. I want a record of the activities so I can continue thinking about their implications. For this I also need a group of comrades who nudge each other to make time for such expoloration, for building on what emerged (as against it becoming a fond memory). Some of the issues here unfold to quite deep developments in thinking & practice.

a. The art activity that Aviva did was an eye opener for me. I did not do much more than observe but the impact it had on me and others seemed to be much greater than I had anticipated. I'm not sure where I'm going with this but being exposed to a field so removed from my normal frame of mind has spurred me on to try and relate to this.

b. I suppose it is mainly a diversity of participant starting points that makes such interactions happen.

c. It did not go where I had expected it to go and that's what made is so powerful/useful/interesting to me.

a. The Forum theatre was an important experience for me. First of all, developing thoughts in a different way, using creatity and nonverbal expression. A very specific experience within the performance was also to be "replaced" by Aviva, seeing how different my own role could have been, and which (other) potentials it had. Likewise, the replacement of the major was interesting, as it provided another context-and feeling!-for the situation. So, working with nonverbal expression but also connecting emotions (or experiencing emotions) with knowledge, was new, exciting, and useful. I will apply it also for my students, or in the context of my works with other scientists.

b. Use more nonverbal techniques, even try to play the same situation with and without words. Allow permutations of one and the same methods.

c. The workshop was a very rewarding experience. I did get less information in the classical sense than expected, but as much and even more on methods, social interaction, weaving a subject in evolving interactions of group members.
The change between different methods was very productive. I would suggest to also have some more (short) parts of dialogue (i.e. 2-person) interaction as part of the program. I was deeply impressed by the - all in all - relaxed way of the workshop and that much less "professional" knowledge (in terms of specific theories, e.g. those for STS or others social sciences) is needed to approach problems and the topics of the workshop.

a.) provocative, useful- why (me/ others): interviews for data- useful because (1) I was able to go from person to person of my choice + build on, refine questions, focus my concerns while expanding knowledge base = one on one tutorial
(2) was surprised by those who wanted my input, pleased to help, forced to further think through + test my experience, knowledge; see where it might go in hands of another

b.) suggestions: more structure to introduction of exercises+ activities; more structured impact + feedback process, including guidance to develop materials, ideas further; better track of citations (several I had submitted weren't used) -> have larger library + time structured to read text more completely, bibliography of books in advance

c.) impact: new fields of inquiry, exposure to new disciplines, lines of investigation = notch up on effective practice. Very curious about some issues- ie., introduction of art metaphors with science practices- deconstruction (semiotic) techniques + relationship to reification formations, cultural issues- outside art discourse.
Can see how to apply both to short term teaching (residencies) + collaborative work over time in building teams, constituencies, support for on ground projects.

a. I particularly enjoyed the Forum Theatre exercise. I made this a positive experience by participating fully and by being open to the possibilities of this new way of learning/experiencing/problem-solving. Others made this a positive experience by doing the same, and by creatively and passionately taking their roles (and discussing/preparing them beforehand). Jo‹o also gave a good introduction which placed it in a broader context and motivated what was to follow.

b. To create more experiences like this at NEWSSC, I think the moderators need to refine ways for the group (or subgroups) to enjoy problem-solving together. Numerous participants stated that this activity was FUN, and enjoyment such as this needs to be nutured as I think it's a critical element of social/ecological restoration. That's not to say there weren't other enjoyable/fun parts of the workshop, but that this one stood out. And, there were some dreary "conference" parts of the workshop too. Furthermore, more experiences like this would be created by allowing small groups to work on workshop projects and presentations together in addition to their larger-scale one that will extend beyond the workshop.

c. I think the conference had a very beneficial impact on myself and, as far as I can tell, on many if not most of the other participants. I made some good connections (possibly even friendship). I experienced a range of new pedagogical options and I was exposed to new ways of thinking about restoration.

a. I like the Dialogue Processes we had last evening. I think it is very good to set up the rule that we'll just let the dialogues flow w/o interrupting each other and w/o assigning who to go next...it all flows automatically. By not getting actively involved in the debate with others, this process allowed us to contemplate and look inward and to think about the topic more profoundly. I think another point that made it possible is the timing. It was scheduled toward the end of the workshop. It is only possible after people had already involved in the discussion in previous days. Also, Peter's facilitation and setting up the tone were also crucial. Overall, everyone respected other people's opinion, expressing ideas in a non-confrontational manner all made this process possible.

b. I would like to have the atmosphere of the workshop be more non-threatening. Although it is unavoidable that some participants are more aggressive, the arguments can be expressed in a more friendly manner, not in a preaching style. Maybe at the beginning of the workshop, everyone should agree to respect each other's diversity and the workshop organizers can also intervene if necessary to remind participants to respect each others' opinions and times (i.e., do not dominate the time).

c. It's nice to have a more engaged experience in the workshop. In contrast to traditional academic conferencing, this one made me feel more engaged and connected with other participants. It's a nice experience. Thanks.

a. The one-on-one "consultations" were fruitful since I had a focused opportunity to discuss common interests with experts whom I otherwise would never have met.

b. This kind of opportunity could be provided by allowing more time for breaks- have one 5-10 minute break per hour + enforce rigorously. Forcing people to go for 2-3 hours without a break is counterproductive.
Also, spend more time ensuring that everyone understands the point of each activity, + please don't show irritation when people ask for further clarification.
Finally, it would be nice to allow time for a common activity such a trip one late afternoon/early evening to Martha's Vineyard.

c. I hope to stay in touch with several people I met here. Thank you for the opportunity to meet such an interesting group.

p.s. To make this experience more sustainable, please ask everyone ahead of time to bring a reusable commuter mug

A. A very positive experience was the consultation times that were assigned for each of us to talk to someone we thought might help with specific issues on our projects. I'm not sure I was as big help to others as much as they were for me, because I felt my collaboration towards answering some of people's questions was sort of limited (perhaps even by the questions themselves). However, people's contributions to my questions, especially Pat's, were truly priceless; the way he shared his methods, tips and ways or working will surely enrich my future teaching experiences.

B. My main suggestion is that in order to get personal interaction going in even more positive ways, time and effort to be spent trying to facilitate people talking to each other in more personal ways. Suggestion: mail activity (as described to Jo‹o), helpful towards seeking to know the other/ participants better in a most personal level.

C. I have the feeling that maybe the workshop wasn't as enriching for everybody as it was for me. This could possibly be due to the fact that we may have strayed too far from the basic points of the name of the workshop: ecological restoration as social reconstruction. We talked about restoration and perhaps of social reconstruction, but maybe the combination of both points wasn't addressed as much, or as well. For me it worked very well, however, because the workshop's format allowed us to discuss a wider array of topics of common interest, trying to link them with the workshop themes, thus making my learning more vast and complete.

a. Particular exercise: forum theatre. Positive because it promoted role playing, imagination, interaction within a group for a coherent purpose, and surprising substitutions/new directions from the participant-audience. Others engaged in a sense of free play that helped shed rationalizations.

b. Not sure I could stand much more experiences like the one above and still sleep 6 hours or so. The whole workshop was pretty intense and the only regret was I did not get much interpersonal work w/ a few people I'd like to know/understand better. <>

c. The impact of the workshop won't be fully felt/appreciated for a while- rationality is not instantaneous, it'll take time to embody the concepts etc. But 3 things: 1. The research plan for my (anticipated) sabbatical book research has benefited hugely- esp. from conversation w/ Yen Chu & Christine. 2. When I resume teaching (hope I get that sabbatical), I'll incorporate theatre & PBL into 2 classes- Technology & Society; Politics of Technical Decisions. 3. Personal relationships- I look forward to mentoring Leonora on her new bioethics course; working with Jo‹o, Aviva & Brandon on the Wiki module; following others work on the Wiki, etc.

a. Collaborating with Yen-Chu, Leonora & Christine to come up with the environmental ed unit idea. We each brought something different to the unit; we played off each other's ideas + in some cases extended them. We had fun picking out whimsical + cheeky photos that were used for purposes of good humor- for presentation to this workshop group alone. One of the strongest points about our scenario was its versatility + flexibility allowing it to be framed for multiple groups, with their accompanying knowledge bases + critical abilities. (That point may not have come through enough in the presentation.)

b. Not sure how to organize it in terms of overall time available in the workshop- but maybe several smaller "product creation" sessions- even as follow ups to other activities that were more expositorially based.

c. Definitely worthwhile- May take some time to internalize completely + incorporate in some way. A survey posted on the wiki 6 months from now might give a good idea on how long lasting some of the positive features were.

a) I found particularly thought-provoking the emergent development of the focus group simulation[?]. It was a very interesting exercise in that, albeit unintended by the proposer of the activity ( I presume!) it developed into an instance of how "unruly" complex situations may become when the heterogeneity of problem, participants and process is "let loose". The very willingness of participants to "take up" their assigned role was certainly a key factor here.

b) This suggests that we could use these procedures in a form of pedagogy of unruly complexity of heterogeneous, intersecting processes, as long as we keep in mind that the explicit aim of the exercise and the outcome may differ, and that this is not a sign of or failure or a problem, but rather a successful enactment of unruly complexity.

c) I learned a lot from all moments in the workshop and appreciated all the challenging communication, criticisms and suggestions addressed to my own work. The group was sufficiently differentiated yet capable of working together to emerge with a lot of creative, original and powerful proposals. I expect the initiative of developing materials from the workshop in a "showable" form to be another very significant outcome of it.
Just a word of my appreciation for the usual careful yet very open conception and organization of the workshop, the smooth, flexible facilitation and the invaluable and absolutely crucial contribution of Jan's skills as the "logistics" person.