One of the most significant point of the Seminar is how the consultants mold and harness the answer of someone into a more accurate, enhanced and more specific idea. Also the ability to debate in an organized way and how they found an opposing idea to many theories that were stated. Some of us helped move the dialogue forward by introducing an idea and soon the others started "chewing" on that new theory as well. Some debates occurred when some consultants took sides on what they felt was right; however the group then came with an answer that reflected both of the consultant's ideas that proposed neutrality. Some consultants came up with ideas that they backed up strongly against any contradicting theory from any other consultant. The group then accepted ideas from external people (audience) and improved them consistently. Constant eye contact and instant answering after a speaker proved to me that some listened and analyzed carefully and creatively. Normally the students would not listen to a useless fact, however the reason some people listened to opinion change, was that some had theoretical evidence.
I would say that the worst part of the seminar was that there was a small group of consultants in the 1st group, thus less information was introduced. The 2nd group was larger and thus had more ideas introduced. The best part however is that I learned a lot of new information and also refined my own theories into more accurate ideas. I would like the dialogue type of Seminar modified into a debate situation where the consultants propose their ideas and others will oppose them; this would give us more ideas to learn.
No comments:
Post a Comment