So first off I found the blogs and the process very helpful..
I think our groups different backgrounds and approaches to the task gave a good balance of practical and theoretical observations and reflections. Some of us definitely favoured one side of the fence but the combined groups input ment we were all able to engage with a broader view.
In this respect the groups size was a real advantage. In a previous similar blogging process my group was wittled down to 3 and I didn’t feel the benefits of the bredth of experiences and approaches that I did here.
My submissions have been quite ‘clinical’. Bullet pointed, the tasks have been broken down and unpicked area by area.
Verity’s approach has been much more humanised, I’ve really benefited from her student focused and empathic posts.
Initially James maybe had too much to say and didn’t focus or organise his posts in a way that I found easy to engage with. I think he has really responded to feedback from the group and his last post was for me the most helpful and insightful of the group in part through how accessible it was.
Catherine has really excelled in terms of the academic aspect of the task. Her referencing and reading is relevant and well cited and has been very helpful to me as I struggle with Academia’s methods.
Finally, I am regretful I’ve not had more of a chance to talk with Rebecca about the broadcast course she teaches on and her evident industry experience. Her contextualisation is excellent and particularly interesting to me as I have an amateur enthusiasm in this area, making the examples easily understandable to me.
In general the people in my group have made this process an extremely edifying one from my point of view. I’ve really benefited from the different style and view points. I feel we’ve worked together well.
I feel it is in itself an inclusive approach to learning by offering us an oppotunity to learn and share learning through an unmoderated, open channel, producing results which inevitably could not have been achieved in a bubble.