LILA ~ Learning Innovations Laboratory at the Harvard Graduate School of Education

Looking for content and documents from our Gatherings? Login

April 2018 Feedback

Posted by

From Team

Day 1

What went well

  • Both speakers were engaging
  • They were committed to the group – in conversation with us rather than a show
  • Members were engaged in the break out – practical group less theoretical (how do you identify and break patterns)
  • More questions for the discussion groups
  • Lots of post it notes
  • Learning round for NASA was very productive.  Daniel thought it was poor – too many people and we didn’t really help them much.
  • For Parexel, Michele reminded them about the content of the morning and suggest we might bring it into the conversation
  • Engagement in the first hour was high
  • Jim and Mary were coherent:  structure of talk


  • Wondering how new people would impact the pattern.   The energy was high and it seems to add to the energy
  • Ask Mary to address definitions especially about patterns
  • Lunch options

Ben, Christine,Tattiana


Day 2

What went well

  • Framing that David used broke the pattern and worked well
  • Fluid
  • The exercise worked well and it was hard to really do as a participant
  • Micro-moves:  Mary to use Sita’s drawing for her talk.  Sita could do it because she knew what the exercise was
  • Jim’s presentation was a narrative.  Personal story, unfolded the narrative, brought back the story. Anchoring ideas around simple metaphors, that are repeated

What to do differently

  • Check with facility to resent up the room on day 2
  • Internet was very spotty
  • Booking space for next year
  • Under utilizing artifacts – find out more about how members are using them.  What structural piece could be used.
  • Document impact of learning round from Jim Martin.

Harvard Graduate School of Education