[NCUC-EC] Draft FY21 ABR doc for Org - REVIEW BY 17 DEC

[Mili Semlani]

I support the idea of breaking up the session in 2 parts.

--
With gratitude
Mili Semlani
Journalist & Engagement Manager
Founder @ Youth4IG <http://youth4ig.asia>
Instagram <https://www.instagram.com/theuntraveller/> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/milisemlani/>




On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 at 03:09, Olga Kyryliuk <olga_kyryliuk at ukr.net> wrote:

> Hi Raphael and All,
>
> I totally agree with comment made by Ken in previous email. And I left a
> similar remark in the google doc. Maybe you can take that into
> consideration before sharing with Org. I believe we can always reduce the
> timing but it is better to have some more space since beginning, which
> would give us a bit more flexibility when working on the agenda.
>
> Thanks for putting it all together.
>
> Best,
> Olga
>
>
> *17 декабря 2020, 16:10:20, от "Ken Herman" <ken at kherman.com
> <ken at kherman.com>>:*
>
> Hi Raphael.
>
> I’ve made a few editing suggestions but otherwise looks good to me.
>
> My only general comment is that it’s a lot of material to include, and
> absorb, in a 90 - 120 minute session, especially on a virtual presentation,
> when attention-spans can dwindle. I do not have a lot of experience with
> these trainings so I admit it’s hard for me to judge, and I defer to others
> with more experience. Someone can maybe help me understand how prescriptive
> we need to be with Org, do we tell them everything or do we simply let them
> know what we want to do and let the education specialists there design the
> best approach?
>
> If left to us, my only suggestion is to consider breaking the training
> into two sessions, which would have the benefit of allowing time for the
> class cohort to both digest the material as well as interact between the
> sessions. An exercise can be added to the first session which could
> reinforce the material.
>
> I realize there may be challenges to get participants into even one class,
> much less two, but I would wonder that if participants are not engaged
> enough to finish the training then how motivated would they be to
> participate at all.
>
> Ken
>
>
>
> *From:* NCUC-EC <ncuc-ec-bounces at lists.ncuc.org> *On Behalf Of *Raphael
> Beauregard-Lacroix
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 16, 2020 12:31 PM
> *To:* Exec. Comm <ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org>
> *Subject:* [NCUC-EC] Draft FY21 ABR doc for Org - REVIEW BY 17 DEC
>
> Dear all,
>
> As promised, please find below.
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m_hdfKoebb-4qmRy6zopbIpBpdemSw7sSp1audhK354/edit?usp=sharing
>
> *I would kindly ask you to review this document ASAP and by no later than
> Thursday 17 Dec 23:59 UTC, *so that it can be circulated with NCSG and
> NPOC leadership for coordination.
>
> thank you, and have a nice day,
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCUC-EC mailing listNCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.orghttps://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCUC-EC mailing list
> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20201218/9bc79f62/attachment.html>