Well, our perfomance nr. 4 did not go as planned. Unfortunately, the propositions we made were not the best ones ever. The propositions we made, see performance 4, did not really address the point we should have addressed. So our teacher very quickly interrupted our attempt at a discussion to steer it in a different direction. She felt that the main point of interest in the article (of which she was a co-author by the way) was how it introduced a way to evaluate an appreciative inquiry from a relational constructionist perspective. However, the responsive evaluation was only part of our last proposition. With regard to the other propositions, we did not really introduce them very well. Before establishing some sort of agreement in class about what the article actually meant with appreciative inquiry, we already wanted to discuss its value. Maybe we did that a bit to fast indeed, something that can only result in ‘blabla’ as our teacher would say it.
So we as a group were sort of thrown out of balance, we were sort of stomped at the fact that we apparently did not hit the right tone with our propositions. Well, nothing to do about it, but I did feel a bit depressed after it. Next performance we will have to think harder about getting our point across. One of the other groups in our class did a better job. They let us recall what were the important points of the article that they were to reflect upon, and wrote these down on the flipover. It actually presented a good picture of what the articles was teaching us and what we as a group picked out of it.