Workshop evaluation

New England Workshop on Science and Social Change 2007

Draft of evaluation report [7 May 07; summaries of part I and synthesis yet to come; see also review of the program by facilitator & organizer]

Part II

Write out neatly a synthetic statement (1 or 2 paragraphs) evaluating this workshop. (You might build on/build in your comments from Part I.) Please make comments both to help us develop the workshop in the future and to enable some third party to appreciate the workshop’s strengths and weaknesses. (Imagine a reader who may not be willing to wade through all the notes on the other side, but who wants to see more than averages from a "1-5" numerical evaluation.)

1. This workshop, for me, seemed to accomplish quite well the goals that were set and given to possible participants. I really appreciate that. It was a great pleasure to be part of a group focused on process in relation to a topic experienced by participants from somewhat varied perspectives. As someone interested in the “issue at hand” I feel that this workshop provided me with a great opportunity to discover more detailed directions to explore both from others and from considering my own experience in this context.

I would have liked a bit more time for reflection and reframing during the process and time to refocus on my personal goals.

A more diverse group of participants would have been interesting.

This was a great environment to focus on and explore ideas that I hope will be very important and central to work I will be involved in the future. Thank you.

2. The goals and objectives guiding this workshop are extremely valuable and timely. The need to think and work collaboratively in the field of environmental problems across different disciplines and social realities cannot be more important given the current state of the world’s environment – ecologically and socially.

This kind of workshop would be useful for all people involved in education and research at all levels of education. I highly recommend it.

3. One of the most interesting dimensions of this workshop is to be able to deal with very different experiences, backgrounds and diversity and to focus on our particular interests and develop fruitful and real collaborations with those who are more in line terms of their own interests.

From the diversity of experiences and activities, this workshop gives us tools to develop and take with us our future activities, including facilitation models which are very helpful…

4. The workshop was quite successful in creating a space in which participants could take risks and explore ideas about collaboration to generate new environmental knowledge. Although all participants had strong professional connections with the environmental topics, the discussion often was applicable more generally to the collaborative process rather than only environmental knowledge and inquiry. There was a very good blend of personal, theoretical, pedagogical, institutional, theoretical, and pragmatic approaches to collaboration, and exploration of issues. The facilitation was excellent – flexible and responsive to participants needs, but sufficiently structured that we didn’t seem to be floundering or trying to make up things to do. That said, I think that there might be ways to build more continuity across the activities by introducing certain exercises early in the workshop then letting participants revisit them later and revise what was produced. Examples could be our pictures of collaboration (for the visual/graphic learners) and the teaching scenarios. I did little preparation beforehand, other than visiting the website a times to download logistics and required readings (plus a couple of recommended readings) and read the participants extended bios. I think that I could have gotten more from the workshop had I done two advance homework assignments: brainstorm several questions I have about collaboration, and write a short statement about my experience as a collaborator in the generation of environmental knowledge and inquiry.

5. This workshop is created by and depends on the quality of participants, in both their ability to share/teach others and to be open to learning. It is structured in such a way that (most) academic markers are removed from consideration so all participants are expected to play all the time. Its difficult to be solely an observer – you would miss out on all the fun people are having. It’s also difficult to keep your own knowledge/experience hidden as you start to see and make connections and links across disciplines, ages, genders, and different levels of skill. The workshop tries to employ multiple ways of knowing and learning about the world, so everyone is uncomfortable at least some of the time. As one participant noted, he was learning the most during the times he was most uncomfortable. By the end of the workshop you’ve gained a few/many new skills and, more importantly, serious connections to a group of people you were unlikely to meet/work with in your daily life.

6. Only at the end can I state that this workshop was effective for my goals. I ask myself: did I come away with what I wanted and share something that others wanted, and on this final day I can say “yes.” However, this is not to say that this was my response every day. Was this the expected? Maybe, but sometimes it is good to hear like they used to tell me in organic chemistry class – “don’t worry it will make sense soon.”

I knew why I wanted to come to the workshop. I read info available online and it meshed with what I had been thinking in my mind. I don’t think it is entirely positive that at the end of the first day I was asking myself, “why did I come?” This became apparent at the end.

A workshop on collaboration optimally should be collaborative. I don’t think this workshop was, for the most part. Yet, I know that there were certain goals/objectives out of the control of the participant. Does the goals of one preclude the others in a collaborative endeavor. This is one of many questions that remain unanswered.

If I were to design this workshop myself, I would invite a few select individuals and openly invited others to develop the workshop goals. These don’t have to exclude the institutional goals (i.e., experimental goals, meeting the requirements of the funding limits, etc.) but could be the personal/professional that each person brings to the workshop. These could be focused on one case study which also can be selected (with facilitation), or can be also collaboratively selected. The objective/exercise of allowing a group to decide may meet, for example, some process goals (i.e., the realization that collaboration, from the start, is not easy!” But, the spirit would be that participants feel that they participate in the entire workshop process.

7. This workshop was a very collegial experience. Participants were able to use their disciplinary knowledge to generate activities that addressed the process of collaboration in many different contexts. The workshop’s format is flexible and open to directions that the participant’s as a whole want to take; consequently individual goals or expectations may not always have been met.

8. This workshop achieved a cohesiveness of effort towards addressing a messy question: Is there collaborative generation of environmental knowledge, and if so what ought to be done to support it? I remain vague on the answer to the first part, but optimistic about the process required for the second. I take this outcome to border on paradox!

In any event, I benefited most from learning of the range of activities that the participants take to constitute their contributions to environmental knowledge – that is, in their “day jobs.” I also have become convinced that the interdisciplinary field on environment science is in need of conceptual work at the foundations of their (its) epistemology. Perhaps more explicit instruction/reading on this issue would be beneficial for future workshops.

9. The workshop was of tremendous value to me for various reasons. First, it was wonderful to have the time to work on myself, and my own skill set. (I have very little time for this these days.) Second, the other members of the group brought a tremendous amount of energy and engagement to the table, without which the workshop would’ve been difficult or more painful. Third, the workshop was well run and quite well planned. Much was open-ended, but that didn’t result in a loss of quality. If we were to do this again, I think a small pre-workshop assignment would be good, such as everyone prepping a case of theirs that could be developed further during the time. Something like a one or two page case explanation.

10. This workshop clarified for me the need for emphasis on duality in collaborative generation of knowledge - on one side, addressing the (evolving) issue at hand; on the other side, enhancing skills and dispositions to participate and be stretched in participation (e.g., working with people who are different, including some less inclined to engage in open-ended process). The workshop itself provided many experiences and tools for the second side, but the group -- with our knowledge and growing participation skills/dispositions -- was not tested as it would be if we had to confront or be consulted seriously on a specific real case. In short, there are challenging open questions remaining at the end of the workshop.

11. This workshop provided me with a number of appropriate, and what looked like, effective facilitation techniques and activities in order to assist with the building of collaboration around environmental issues. I was also exposed to, shared with, and made connections with a variety of individuals who would likely be a part of such a discussion, which in my mind is an important and valuable experience in and of itself. I was able to come away with two of my personal goals met, on directly, the other indirectly, and left with good questions with which to think and wrangle. I also learned some important things about myself, the way I interact with others in a collaborative setting, and my facilitation style. The one area I felt the workshop could be improved, and this may have been due to my own difficulties in navigating the multiple layers of meaning happening all at the same time, would be to provide a more explicit framework so that it is better understood when it was time to reflect on the activities and how we, as facilitators ourselves at some point in the near future, would incorporate these techniques.

12. The workshop worked very well at engaging participants, allowing time to learn about each other, and encouraging deep listening, both to ourselves and others. Many ideas and technologies for enhancing collaboration were shared, potentials for application to environmental knowledge were clear and many.

There were perhaps too many individual activities (not certain about this). The idea of introducing a whole group project and building on it for the 3^rd and 4^th days might serve as a better way to understand how real world projects and real world groups interact. When weather serves, some break-out groups might work well. At the end a “report” could be developed on the actual project, with sidebars to highlight issues and concerns around the collaboration. Such a format could incorporate much of the process work we did (sidebars), along with specific content (narrative text).