Observation: Caucasian Chalk Circle: De-Brief 26 June 2018 2-4pm. Fran Johnson moderator

Reading from the rule sheet: lends legitimacy, but does make this feel formulaic and stiff. Is it stultifying?

FJ sits with the students in the circle, but on one end. He speaks fairly quietly, but no one appears to have trouble listening to him.

The air is agitated, nervous. CS is on the defensive from the word go. Where are the props first years? Dammit.

The system for getting positive feedback first appears chaotic but seems to work anyway. Most everyone is hot and stinky, and the room feels close. Nervous laughter abounds, giving way to mirth.

Okay, what do we actually hope to get out of this exercise? What does it facilitate? Why are we starting with empty waffle? "It was challenging but we all stepped up and did our best and I'm very proud of us" is a horrible "one example of something you were really proud of yourself or your team for on this project". I guess there isn't time to call her out on it.

It might have been helpful to check in with SM, costumes, LX to get a preliminary idea of what those students were doing on this show. Playing favourites, not because FJ is partial to the SC, SA and Props students, but because he knows what they've been up to.

His responses to the students' comments feel genuine. He makes eye contact, listens, and summarises what the student has said, with a querying tone--he's asking if he's understood correctly. His responses are not particularly helpful but they show that he cares and is listening.

MC in TSD got heaped with praise by sound!

Complimenting the info pack LX put together, without prompting: FJ provides positive feedback on students' preparation and paperwork, which I feel is valuable. It wasn't all just running around on the day, on stage.

Lacklustre response to the positive. Concerning response to head TPM student from FJ, decidedly avoiding saying "good job" or anything like it. Interesting. Not exactly tactful, not exactly tactless, but it felt like it stung. She needed more constructive feedback, yes she was difficult, but to hold her separate from the rest of the crowd during the 'positive feedback' bit of the session feels way harsh.

Self-directed discussion sounds on-topic. Fran trusts them to monitor themselves, and they appear to respond well to that. Is DR a team member in this?

Positive feedback is always vague, but as expected negative feedback is pointed. This is a challenge for everyone, it seems. Maybe more clear reminders for idea of what feedback should be?

Valid feedback: yes, that company was a problem. What's your learning from this? Don't use that company again in future. Funny, true. Not particularly helpful per se, but the umbrella idea, "don't maintain relationships with companies that don't do a good job" is meritorious. Maybe not a particularly 'academic' note--a response only an industry-close worker would come up with (and go with).

Clever students are easy to lead.
How do we deal with the telephone game in advance? How do we prevent rumour from supplanting the facts?

Students in department groups for department feedback. Is this the most helpful arrangement? Are the post-it notes contributing significantly to discussion, or are they and the markers a colourful prop? Did the students realise in advance that their responses would not be anonymous?

Letting them speak and express their own learning--do they know what they've learnt?

FJ is now standing at the white board but just as a facilitator--so he can read the post-it notes. Doesn't feel overbearing or teacherly. Still favouring SC with attention and relevant feedback, whereas other departments' feedback is more boilerplate.

RM is an angry young man. He needs some sort of intervention.

Standing up to the directors: how do we provide useful advice to the students when it comes to this most difficult of chutzpah-requiring tasks? Dealing with professionals when you are not really a professional is next to impossible--they can always shoot you down if they want to. How do we improve how we present the students as professionals to the professionals while not leaving them high and dry, or harming the learning environment?

EK is terrified. This is a high-pressure environment if you have something negative to say about someone else, or another department. Too high? Is it so high that some things are going unsaid because the students who need to say them are too nice or don't want to hurt anyone's feelings? What EK wants to say needs to be said: the floor was damaged by carelessness with the Genie lift and the portable floor panels. It needs to be said to Lighting and Sound. She's saying it to everyone and pointedly avoiding eye contact with those students. FJ has an opportunity here to stand up and support her, demand that other departments learn from this.

Organising the sharings: it seems like a few departments are being neglected or aren't part of the "core group" and they're being left to the very end. Could this be a bit more mix-n-match? Or time limits: a few groups, like Props, have very little to do with the other departments, and seem to be waiting a very long time for the opportunity to say not very much to not many people. Seems like a waste of these students' time.

ACTION: improve access to money for TPM students and other budget-holders.
ACTION: test rigid expanding foam with heat to see if it shrinks?

Actor proof is at least a step beyond idiot proof.