 |
[ZAWiW] [gemeinsamlernen] [LiLL] | ||
|
|
|
|
 GemeinsamLernen |
|||
|
|
|
|
| Self-organised Learning Groups in Europe |
 |
||
|
|
||
| Experience Reports |
|||
|
|
|
|
| Arnhem Group |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
 Page 3 of 10
 |
|
|
||
|
home | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doke Doude van Troostwijk |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hannie Pelleboer-Beuker |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A self-study-group in a non-universitary institute |
|
|
|
 |
|
Concluding Report |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Concluding Report
Stand:
After the second meeting twelve participants remained, one of which dropped out quite soon because of circumstances.
The other 11 participants have, despite several and sometimes impressively aggravating personal circumstances, taken part in the project till the very end.
It became clear from the enrolment that nearly half the participants used to be teachers in secondary education, although in different subjects such as Dutch, History or Chemistry. The other half brought in expertise as toxicologist, process engineer, theologian or physician.
So it was a melting pot of both theoretical and practical people, but people who were used to go deep into the matter, which also defined their attitude and their approach during this research.
This was one of the reasons that gave the research of our theme more body whereas the theme of the SoLiLL-project was supposed to be the medium for other purposes.
It was fascinating to see the heterogeneous group of people turn into a very coherent group with a growing solidarity and feeling of responsibility.
Throughout the process it was emphasised that everyone could contribute to the best of his or her ability. Any contribution was seen as valuable.
The differences in individual participation are always determined by more factors, such as personal character, level of education, professional experience, social status and family.
Not only is it impossible to compare personal effort but such a comparison may counteract
the process.
A.4 Initial processes of the thematic research.
We will go briefly into the initial phase of the thematic research especially in view of the
related processes.
A.4.1 A cycle of lectures as introduction.
The participants attended this cycle of lectures on Senior Citizens and Living, in which an architect, a gerontologist, a geriatrician and a managing director of a home for the aged shed light on the various aspects of the matter. By the way these lectures were also open to other U3A participants.
It will be obvious that this theme is a very important one to all senior citizens as it directly concerns them.
For all the participants of the Arnhem self-study group this appeared to be the second reason which made the thematic research gain major consequence.
Later in the SoLiLL-project this caused some tension between personal goals and SoLiLL objectives.
A.4.2 Senior Citizens and Living, the theme framed.
The theme Senior Citizens and Living was more framed and more attention was given to the phase during which people are faced with the choice of staying in their homes independently or give up independence because of geriatric symptoms or illness.
A.4.3 The research divided into three elements.
The research theme Senior Citizens and Living was divided into three elements:
1. What are the motives and the aversion of the elderly that lead them to decide whether or not to give up their independence?
2. Can we make an inventory of forms of housing available for the elderly?
3. Is there a basis within our society that supports a policy of treating elderly with marked preference as far as living is concerned?
A.5 The setting up of teams and the necessity of meetings with all participants.
A.5.1 Setting up a team.
For each of the three elements of research a team was set up. Because of the fact that motives and aversion would be emphasised the team ¨Motivation¨ consisted of five people.
The ¨Inventory¨ team and the ¨Social basis¨ team were smaller with three and two persons respectively.
The grouping of the members of the different teams was based on their personal interest.
Some specifically preferred a particular thematic part others decided on a more practical basis such as the co-operation with someone who lived close by.
During the SoLiLL project the following learning experiences in relation to the teams
emerged:
Learning experience 1: Team size.
An important issue is team size, a team of 4 to 5 members appears to work perfectly, there is good interaction, sufficient sounding board and the ability to be effective.
Smaller teams tend to need more sounding board and present their findings on a more provisional basis.
Because of the difference in manpower a larger team will make a bigger contribution thana smaller team which may lead to feelings of inadequacy within the smaller team.
