Exceptional Campus Session 4 !

Yesterday I was happy to participate to an extra campus session I'd suggested back on the second one...I though that an extra one after the Easter break could have been very beneficial to us, giving the opportunity to clarify the last few uncertainties and have the chance to talk about the artefact a bit more.


Again it was a small group but it gave us more time to spend on our own practices research and our main concerns.
I personally have to give a big YES YES to Paula and her Addendum for module 3 as that is the best way for me to "just get things done"!!! Having deadlines and tasks it's a bit frustrating for some (and to me as well) but it actually puts me on the spot and I tend to follow deadlines a bit more :)
This was regardless the deadline for part 1 and 2 of the Critical Review, which I first drafted and sent over to Paula, even though after today I already know what I need to change and what I did "wrong" writing up my Evaluation part.

I believe Paula will blog about this too but I think the most important points that came up today (in a total informal chat lasted 3 hours) are the follows:

- Journal entries and the importance of blogging for final marks -
Tamsin (whom I met today and was very helpful and supportive with her participation) wasn't sure that the journal writing was something we will get marked on as, she explained, she couldn't engage with the journal task as much as having full conversations with fellow peers and blogging and commenting about them. (Goodwin-Connelly, 2012)
She got reassured by Paula that as long she has a reason for not using them and she can back it up with evidence, explaining why she used it or not, that is totally fine.

- Clarification on Literature Review -
This time I needed some explanation on the Literature Review of the Evaluation part. I wasn't sure (yeah still..I know!) how it had to be structured in what should be a piece of writing of only 2.500 words (10 % more or less) which seems a lot but really isn't enough to write about every single literature found and still have words left to talk about everything else (who you talked to, what tools you used, why you chose the people you've chosen to interview, what were the consequences/outcomes of your activities, bibliography, etc..)
So Paula helped me understand better with a "live" example, asking Tamsin what kind of literatures she had found and which one were the ones that mostly influenced her thinking; she talked about a book she read but more specifically about one chapter that caught her the most, so she will be probably citing and quoting from that chapter in particular as she can't tell us about the whole book. That's how the literature review show work, finding the ones that mostly worked for our specific inquiry and mentioning those in the Evaluation part to then be able to cite them back in the Analysis part.... ( Have I explained it well?? If it doesn't make sense please ask me and I'll try to make myself clearer ) :P Tamsin also told us how she made a post on the main themes of her literatures making it easier for her to then use that in her appendice to back up with evidence her Literature review ( Tamsin please correct this if not accurate! )

- Artefact -
We then talked about were we are with our artefacts and we were all at different stages. I guess this is the part that scares most people up as it's difficult to find in such short amount of time what would work best for our targeted audiences. I have personally thought of creating a website for the performers (my audience) gathering useful information I found that could help the emerging performer find what is needed in this industry. Paula had to warn me on checking the implication that this my have once it goes public, I need to make sure that all the content I put on the website are not going to be harmful for myself...basically not to shoot me in the foot. I have to make a good consideration at ethics and privacy before I make it public.

Paula made an exercise for those who were "not there yet" with their artefact idea; she started asking questions to provoke and generate ideas there on the spot to help them out.
Things like, who is your audience, how could they benefit from your findings, how could it be largely distributed in order to reach as many people as possible, were few of the question that Paula asked.

Tamsin had the problem of being more an "academic" and writing persona rather than creative in a arty way, so therefore she felt a bit blocked...we all helped put each other with sharing ideas and advises, which is what felt works always the best. In a way this is the whole point of commenting and connecting among us via blogs; as Tamsin shared with us, she had started following other people's blogs more as that was asked in our module guide and felt she HAD TO, but then she realized that reading other people's thinking could easily relate to her own inquiry arising new inputs for her. That is way we are asked to do it, not much because is only a task that's part of the course, but because we can definitely benefit from it as much as we can help others with our interventions.  ( Paula suggested to her that this thinking process and realization should be part of her final part of the Critical review, the CRitical Reflection )

We concluded that the artefact should be something that almost organically comes from our inquiry (Nottingham, 2012) a finished step rather that a further investigation. Obviously we should use the artefact as something that could go further for our career, that could actually be beneficial in the future (like those that created a workshop or a course program curriculum to then present at job interview for instance).

Also the artefact could be introduced into the Reflection part as how you identify your audience and what brought you to your final decision.

These are the main points that were touched but that also interested me the most, probably looking up at Tamsin, Tamisha, Samatha and Paula's blogs there could be some more interesting parts I left out.
In a way we went through how the Critical Review is structured (Introduction, Evaluation, Analysis, Reflection, Artefact) and talked about each and what should be enclosed in the writing. Paula added that nothing is written in stone and something that could be in the analysis as findings could also be mentioned in the Evaluation ... depends how we structure and want to talk about our Inquiry.

Now is the time were we should have at least most of our findings/data and should find a way that works for us to link everything together! Not an easy task I know...were is everyone else at? I'd love to hear how you are doing! :)