A group has just completed an activity or a real-world project. Your job is to help them reflect and learn from their experiences. What turn-taking strategy will you use?

DO YOU MAKE ANY OF THESE FOUR MISTAKES?

1. Not having a turn-taking strategy. 'Laissez-faire' is very unfair especially when it results in domination by the loudest people.

2. Adopting your usual 'default mode' (which you might spot somewhere below) without considering other turn-taking strategies.

3. Imposing a turn-taking method on the group that is either too structured (and lifeless) or one that is too jolly (and superficial).

4. Not making room for participation - by talking too much, getting in the first word, taking all the best lines, filling in the silences, and only asking for participation when you run out of breath.

AN EVALUATION OF TURN-TAKING METHODS

No method is perfect. What follows is a list of turn-taking options with comments about the strengths and weaknesses of each. Methods with lots of minuses are best avoided, or used sparingly. [Please let me know if I have unfairly maligned your favourite methods, or if you have other methods you would like to add – by writing to roger@reviewing.co.uk]

FREE FOR ALL

The facilitator asks a question to the group. Anyone can respond.

+ PLUS +

+ People only speak up if they have something to say.

- MINUS -

- The first person to speak is likely to be the least reflective person in the group who simply says the first thing that comes to mind.

- People who like time to reflect before responding find it difficult or impossible to reflect while others are talking.

- People who lack confidence or feel they hold minority views may be reluctant to speak up.

- The facilitator's open questions will do little to challenge or change norms in the group: dominant individuals will be as dominant as usual; quiet people will be as quiet as usual (and they do not prepare to say anything because they do not expect to be asked).

? WHAT IF ?

... everyone has reflection time before speaking, and if everyone is invited to speak?

HANDS UP / THROUGH THE CHAIR

Hands up - or catch the chairperson's eye if you wish to speak.

+ PLUS +

+ Same as 'Free for all': people only speak up if they have something to say, but it enables wider participation because there is a queuing system for turn-taking.

- MINUS -

- Same as 'Free for all' except that the queueing system makes it a little easier for less assertive people to join in

? WHAT IF ?

... we had different and better ways of turn-taking? (Better than the 'hands up' routine that we learned on our first day at school.)

TALKING STICK / CONCH / ROVING MIKE

There are some interesting differences between these methods. What they have in common is the rule that holding the object gives you permission to speak. It usually involves catching the eye of the current speaker (and object holder) rather than catching the eye of a chairperson.

+ PLUS +

+ It reduces the power of the chairperson - with each speaker having the responsibility of deciding who speaks next if there is competition for the object.

- MINUS -

- It reduces the power of the chairperson – who would usually be in the best position for noticing who is next in the queue for speaking.

? WHAT IF ?

... we find ways of turn-taking that do not draw attention away from what we are talking about?

ROUNDS

Rounds (also known as 'go-round', 'whip' and 'creeping death')

''Starting with the person on my left you are each invited to answer, in turn, in one or two sentences. As always, passing is allowed.''

+ PLUS +

+ Everyone knows they will get a turn to speak. It feels fair and democratic.

+ At the start of a review a quick round gives everyone a chance to check in while informing the facilitator (and everyone else) about what's 'on top' for each person.

+ A quick round early in a review helps to establish full participation at what is likely to be a relatively easy starting point.

+ Can be used at any time (beginning, middle or end) to give everyone a quick say.

+ As a 'sounding board' it permits a greater range of responses than, say, a show of hands.

- MINUS -

- The first people have little reflection time before speaking (though you can provide this).

- People may be thinking about what they will say rather than paying attention to what is being said.

- The last people to speak often feel that everyone else has stolen their lines, even if the facilitator assures them that repetition is OK

- 'Creeping Death': the structure and predictability of Rounds can readily drain the life out of reviews if used too much, or if people are allowed to speak at length when it is their turn.

- Rounds is not designed to stimulate free-flowing discussion (though an occasional quick round can help to include consideration of all views within a free-flowing discussion).

? WHAT IF ?

... we could find a way of achieving full participation without breaking up the flow of a good discussion? It is interesting to listen to others, but not when they are talking simply because it is their turn rather than because they have something they want to say.'

RANDOM TURN-TAKING

Random turn-taking – such as spin the bottle, spin the arrow or picking a name out of a hat.

You spin the arrow and the person the arrow points to answers the question.

+ PLUS +

+ It keeps everyone alert and awake.

+ Some people think in advance and prepare a response in case they are chosen by the random process. (More will do so if you give them reflection time for this purpose).

- MINUS -

- Some people sit back preferring to improvise an instant response should they happen to be chosen.

- The game-like qualities of 'spin the arrow' produce game-like responses rather than reflective ones.

- People with something they want to say may not get a chance to do so.

- Some people may never be asked for a response (although 'name out of a hat' gives everyone a go if names are not returned into the hat).

- The random choosing process becomes the focus of attention and distracts attention from the content

? WHAT IF ?

... we were to keep to reviewing methods that avoid distraction, minimise frustration, include everyone, encourage choice, set a suitable tone and ... erm, oh yes ... encourage reflection!

RANDOM QUESTIONS

Random questions typically come from question cards that are picked out of a hat. (This does not refer to questions asked by the facilitator – who would usually have some kind of rationale for asking a particular question at a particular time.)

+ PLUS +

+ Some people enjoy the surprise, the challenge and the quick thinking of being expected to answer a random question.

+ Random questions may (by chance of course) just happen to trigger a really interesting response – and even a breakthrough.

- MINUS -

- If random questions work better than questions asked by the facilitator, the facilitator should feel ashamed (or find another job).

- Some people get completely thrown by a random question because the question does not speak to the place they have reached in their reflection. (And then ... they go quiet, or try hard to respond, or ramble, or disregard the question and say what they wanted to say anyway.)

- The use of random questions challenges the idea that reviews benefit from having a sequence that moves people through various stages such as reaction, sharing, analysis, consequences.

? WHAT IF ?

... random questions were reserved for situations in which they serve a useful purpose such as for creative thinking, for developing improvisation skills, for looking at things differently, or for creating a spirit of play? What if random questions were reserved for times when they assist learning?

RANDOM QUESTIONS WITH RANDOM TURNTAKING

Introduces even more randomness into the reviewing process than either of these strategies on their own.

+ PLUS +

+ Totally random reviews might work well. The odds are slightly better than a monkey typing the complete works of Shakespeare.

- MINUS -

- A time filler that brings out random comments from random people in a random sequence.

- Also see the minus points for 'random questions' and 'random turn-taking' above.

? WHAT IF ?

... a review session could be informed by a bit of learning theory, and conducted in a way that allows the facilitator and participants to draw on their skills and experiences?

TALKING TOKENS

Everyone has the same number of tokens (e.g. matchsticks) giving everyone the same number of opportunities to speak. You discard a token after speaking for more than 5 seconds (or for more than one sentence).

+ PLUS +

+ People tend to be more thoughtful about what they want to say if they have a specific number of turns available.

+ Everyone can see that it is fair and that it is designed to encourage the people who usually speak to speak less, leaving room for quieter people to speak up more.

+ So it usually gets off to a good start ...

- MINUS -

- ... and then the discussion falters when those who want to contribute have run out of tokens, and those with tokens remaining have nothing they want to say.

- It brings attention to unbalanced participation, but does not necessarily result in better discussions or wider participation.

- The pressure on quieter people to speak up often happens when there is not a lot left to say

? WHAT IF ?

... we could find better ways of helping quieter people to join in, especially in the earlier stages of a discussion?

 

---

WHAT MAKES AN EFFECTIVE TURN-TAKING STRATEGY?

I have converted the 'What Ifs' above into a single list (below). Maybe these principles provide useful guidance for an effective turn-taking strategy?

• Everyone has reflection time before speaking.

• Everyone is invited to speak.

• Quieter people are readily able to join in, especially in the earlier stages of a review.

• We achieve full participation without breaking up the flow of a good discussion.

• We use reviewing methods that avoid distraction, minimise frustration, include everyone, encourage choice, set a suitable tone and ... encourage reflection!

• We are wary of methods that draw attention away from what we are talking about (although on first use any new method will need some attention while participants are learning how to use it well).

• We reserve random questions for situations in which they serve a useful purpose such as for creative thinking, for developing improvisation skills, for looking at things differently, or for creating a spirit of play.

• Everyone is able to use and develop their skills for learning in groups – and is able to find a suitable level of challenge within the reviewing process itself.
  

It is unlikely that you would find all of these features and principles in a single method – which is partly why it is handy to have a mix of methods. The methods that follow generally score a little higher (against the criteria listed above) than the methods already described.

The full article in which seven more turntaking methods are

presented and evaluated is available for Active Reviewing Tips

readers at: <http://reviewing.co.uk/articles/turntaking.htm>

which is now my preferred title for it.]

Recommended use: for preparing for a journey towards a goal by

reflecting on experience.

Resources: A 5 metre rope for each pair. Paper and marker pens if

using written goals.

Demonstrate with a partner. Lay a 5 metre rope on the ground. The

near end represents their starting point on their journey towards

their goal and the far end represents their goal (for the

programme, or for the transfer of learning). Your partner places

an object or picture or word representing their goal at the far

end of the rope, describes it, and returns to their starting

point at the near end.

This is your skeleton script: 'I don't think you are at the very

start of this journey, so let’s check ... Take a few steps

forwards and turn around to face your starting point. What have

you already done that will help you on this journey? ... What

knowledge, skills, resources, experience, motivation, values,

support, etc. do you already have that will help you on this

journey?' This is your side of a dialogue so pause for responses!

'So where do you think you really are on this journey? Further

forwards? A bit further back?' Allow you partner to move to the

place they choose. (Following a good dialogue, moving towards the

goal is typical but moving closer to the start is also OK.) 'Now

face your goal and tell us what the next step of your journey

will be... Now face your starting point... What has helped you on

your journey so far that might also be useful in the next step of

your journey? What other factors (internal or external) might

help you on this next step?''

Explain that this is the essence of the technique: facing

forwards to talk about your goal or about the next step towards

it, and then turning backwards to review the skills, resources

etc. that you already have that will help you with the next part

of your journey. This exercise does not involve walking into an

imagined future; it is about recognising helpful factors in the

past and present that are real and available. It includes

accessing relevant experiences and drawing confidence, energy and

learning from them precisely when these assets and strengths are

needed. It is ‘just-in-time’ learning! This process helps people

to approach their goal more wisely and confidently. It also

develops the habit and skill of ‘just-in-time’ learning.

After your demonstration and explanation, pairs work together

with one rope per pair, taking turns in the different roles. Much

the same process can be used later in the programme with pairs

returning to their rope, and standing at a point that represents

their current progress towards (or beyond) their goal. Their

conversations follow a similar pattern to the original exercise.

'Objective Line' (above) is the 7th of 11 instalments from

'Dynamic Debriefing' - a chapter I wrote for Mel Silberman's

'Handbook of Experiential Learning'. The first six instalments

were:

1: What is Dynamic Debriefing?

<http://reviewing.co.uk/archives/art/9_1.htm>

2  The Role of the Facilitator

<http://reviewing.co.uk/archives/art/9_2.htm>

3. Models of Debriefing

<http://reviewing.co.uk/archives/art/9_3.htm>

4. The Experience of Debriefing

<http://reviewing.co.uk/archives/art/9_4.htm>

5. The Sequencing in Debriefing

<http://reviewing.co.uk/archives/art/10_1.htm>

6. Action Replay

<http://reviewing.co.uk/archives/art/10_2.htm>

The remaining instalments of 'Dynamic Debriefing' will provide

further examples of debriefing methods.

EDITOR: Dr. Roger Greenaway, Reviewing Skills Training

9 Drummond Place Lane STIRLING Scotland UK FK8 2JF

Feedback, recommendations, questions: roger@reviewing.co.uk

The Guide to Active Reviewing is at http://reviewing.co.uk

'One of the best training sites I've ever seen' Training Journal

COPYRIGHT: Roger Greenaway  Reviewing Skills Training

TURNTAKING IN GROUP REVIEWS
This issue started out as a series of simple exercises that I was using in trainer-training. As I developed these ideas further in writing I felt I was hitting a lot of issues that would strike a chord with reasers - and they did. Thank you to those who have responded with comments and ideas. Some are now published in the article only version of this page entitled: TURN-TAKING WHEN REVIEWING IN A GROUP