For the Action Enquiry module, the Cohort 2 Learning Facilitators decided to go ahead with introducing Learning Sets. We were able to build on the Ultraversity Cohort 1 experience and will review our experiences next week. A team decision was to encourage researchers to form learning sets of 3 to 5 people with a shared research interest or on any other basis. Editable documents were provided to help the groups to form.

What did I do?
As the researchers negotiated learning sets and notified the online communities, I kept some back up copies of the sets in case of accidental deletion. I recorded the sets for my group so that I could help with those who had not found a learning set.

researcher	number in set	notes
Alpha	3	assigned to set
Beta	4	self-selected set, shared research theme
Gamma	4	self-selected set, shared research theme and similar work setting
Delta	3	self-selected set, friendship group
Epsilon	4	self-selected set, similar work setting
Zeta	3	self-selected set
Eta	3	self-selected set
Theta	3	self-selected set, shared research theme
Iota	4	self-selected set, shared research theme
Kappa	3	assigned to set
Lambda	4	self-selected set, friendship group
Mu	3	self-selected set, shared research theme and similar work setting
Nu	3	assigned to set

Alpha, Kappa and Nu had not found themselves a learning set, so I suggested that they form one set and this was accepted. Most researchers formed self-selected sets (11/14), one of which grew large so I recommended that they split into two groups, based on my experience of the demands placed on individuals in larger groups and on literature which suggests that learning sets should be kept to a manageable size. The sets were formed from across Cohort 2 and apart from the assigned set more than one facilitator was involved in each set.

With the Independent Learning Module, I sent interim feedback on targets and had some surprising reactions. The assignments had all been handed in, but we were at the stage between preliminary marking and stndardisation. One thing which doesn't change much is in identifying key targets from the assignments and at this stage the facilitators often provide a mix of general and individual feedback. For this module, I decided to send individuals the actual targets as these are often used with future modules - but before moderation it isn't possible to send marks. Targets without marks provoked a variety of responses which were much more detailed than for previous modules.



The focus was on what I'd written and the I concluded that the actual mark is a kind of distraction from the feedback. I'm not sure if I would provide the targets in this way again as it may appear to be too challenging without the reassurance of a mark and the other comments which focus on what has been achieved. If I add more, I may as well leave it to the release of the complete feedback.

I've just added my name to the live8 list. I've just been in the Co-op to pick up some bread and wine but didn't spot the white bands. Small things can be done to help to raise the profile of the campaign, and perhaps the most important thing I've done is to talk with someone who disagrees. Maybe the issues and possible solutions are complex, but it doesn't seem right to say that because its difficult we should ignore personal tragedies which have some basis in politics and economics.