HOME |
View the ARCHIVES ISSN 1465-8046 |
ACTIVE
Reviewing Tips
|
How to SUBSCRIBE for free |
HELP |
|---|
| Roger
Greenaway's Active Reviewing Tips 11.1 ~ ISSN 1465-8046 A free monthly publication from Reviewing Skills Training ARTips
11.1 Turntaking
in Group
Reviews
|
|
The
previous issue 'Reviewing for Peace and
Conflict
Resolution' is now at: <http://reviewing.co.uk/archives/art/10_2.htm>
|
|
~ 2
~ ARTICLE: TURNTAKING
IN GROUP REVIEWS
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?
AN EVALUATION OF TURN-TAKING METHODSNo 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 ALLThe 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 CHAIRHands 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 MIKEThere 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?
ROUNDSRounds (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-TAKINGRandom 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 QUESTIONSRandom 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 TURNTAKINGIntroduces 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 TOKENSEveryone 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?
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>
Since writing this article I have frequently revisited the topic of engaging learners in reviewing - each time from a different perspective. These articles are brought together in Active Reviewing Tips 12.2 |
|
The Active Learning
Manual is a pilot project using
video to
demonstrate active
learning methods. You can view my
introductory
video and three one
minute videos
I have been receiving
lots of interesting, useful and
positive
comments via the
feedback form. This feedback has
convinced me
that this is a useful
resource to develop further.
It is clearly ambitious
to squeeze some methods into
just one
minute. Many people
liked this one minute format,
while others
would prefer more
detail. The compromise is that
future videos
will be around two
minutes, each with links to written
notes.
To speed up the
generation of these videos, I will be
responding
enthusiastically to
clients who ask if they can take
videos of my
training workshops or
of specific reviewing techniques.
If you are a client (or
potential client) who has
access to the
equipment and skills to
take and edit 2 minute videos
of a
similar style and
quality to the pilot videos at
<http://www.activelearningmanual.com>
please get in touch with me
at roger@reviewing.co.uk
and ask how this can save you money.
|
|
Roger's Active Learning
Bookshop has raised over £1,316
for Save
the Children since
January 2006 - thanks to everyone
who has been
shopping at the Active
Learning Bookshop. THANK YOU!
THE NEW TOP 20 AT
ROGER'S ACTIVE LEARNING BOOKSHOP
This top twenty is
revised annually. It is interesting
to look
out for trends from
year to year. There are always
several
collections of TEAM
ACTIVITIES in the top twenty:
books with lots
of activities and a low
price tag seem to sell best of
all.
There also seem to be
plenty of smart buyers around
who avoid
books with poor reviews
(simply collecting lots of
activities is
not enough to sell a
book). However, this year many of
the new
entries and fast
climbers belong to a different
category - which
I would call 'EASY TO
READ GUIDES' to the skills of
facilitating
groups and workshops.
For example, Zen of
Groups has climbed 7 places to the
top spot,
and a new entry at 19
is 'Once Upon a Group' which has
been
around since the 1980's
and is still, in my view, the
best book
to read when first
working with groups. Perhaps No. 20
is the
start of a new trend -
it is one of a series of
student workbooks
on emotional
intelligence. The trend? Buying books for
participants as well as
for the facilitator??
1 The Zen of
Groups
2 Quick
Team-building Activities for Busy
Managers
3 Team
Building Through Physical Challenges
4 The Big
Book of Motivation Games
5 The
Icebreakers Pocketbook
6 100
Training Games
7 Brilliant
NLP
8 How to Run
a Great Workshop (new entry)
9 Introducing
NLP (new entry)
10 Team-Building
Activities for Every Group
11 The Big Book of Team
Building Games
12 The Facilitator's
Pocketbook (new entry)
13 Accelerated Learning
Pocketbook
14 Experiential
Learning (comeback)
15 More Team Building
Challenges (new entry)
16 Practical
Facilitation: A Toolkit of Techniques
17 The Art of
Facilitation (new entry)
18 The Big Book of
Humorous Training Games
19 Once Upon a Group
(comeback)
20 The Habits of
Emotional Intelligence (new entry)
The quickest way to
find out more about (or buy) any
of these
books is to view this
TOP TWENTY on its special page
at:
Do ALL your Amazon
shopping (not just books) via
<http://reviewing.co.uk/reviews>
and not only do YOU get a good
deal, so do CHILDREN
around the world who need our
help. I worked
for Save the Children
for 4 years so I know about the
value and
quality of the work
they do. Please support them by
buying your
books (and any other
Amazon goods) via ROGER'S ACTIVE
LEARNING
BOOKSHOP at: <http://reviewing.co.uk/reviews>
|
| ~ 6
~ EVENTS: FACILITATION TRAINING TIPS FOR TRAINERS
CONFERENCE 2009
DATES: 15-16 October
2009 (pre-conference 14th October)
VENUE: Wallacespace,
Covent Garden, London
I presented workshops
at the inaugural Tips for
Trainers
Conference last year.
It was such an energetic and
inspiring
event that I'll be
there this year too. Will you?
Do you want new,
interactive, learner-centred training
ideas and
techniques that involve
your learners every step of
the way yet
still focus upon
high-retention and are totally
content focused?
Then this is the
conference for you. A unique
conference packed
with ideas and
techniques that you will experience
from the
actual trainers that
have developed and used
them Take these
away to add further
impact to your own workshops!
THE INTERNATIONAL
FOUNDATION FOR ACTION LEARNING
CONFERENCE
DATES: 27-28 October
2009
VENUE: Scottish Youth
Theatre, Glasgow
Breaking New Ground:
New ways and means in Action
Learning
Keynote speaker: Ian
McGill, co-author of
‘The Action Learning
Handbook’
IFAL Conference website:
FACILITATION
FUNDAMENTALS
DATES: 2-3 November 2009
VENUE: The Dower House
Hotel, Knaresborough, North
Yorkshire
Freshen up your
facilitation skills, increase your
confidence and
have more tools and
techniques to get the most out of
meetings &
events.
This two day open
programme has been designed for
professionals
who want to spend
quality time exploring core
facilitation roles
and responsibilities
when working with groups. The
course is
dynamic, packed with
tools, methods and techniques and
provides
insight into the key
facilitation competencies. You
will enjoy a
structured, safe and
creative environment in which to
get to
grips with and master
many aspects of group
facilitation.
Visit facilitate this!
to find out more:
REVIEWING SKILLS
TRAINING AROUND THE WORLD
I am providing training
events in England, Wales,
Hungary,
Singapore and Denmark.
Details are on my news page at:
If you would like to
host an open event or arrange for
an in-
house customised
trainer-training programme please get
in touch.
Write to: <roger@reviewing.co.uk>
|
|
Discover the scandalous
ways in which stories about science
are
constructed by the
media: Ben Goldacre shows how even a
rudimentary knowledge
of statistics and the scientific
method can
help you see through it
all.
Bad Science is
humorous, angry and very helpful guide to
sorting
true science from the
'sciency'. It is also a wonderfully
topical
introduction to the use
and abuse of statistics - especially
for
non-scientists and
humanities graduates like myself.
I am reviewing it here
because Goldacre starts by
investigating
(and ridiculing) a
particular approach to 'active learning':
Brain Gym. He also
takes a critical look at the Durham Fish
Oil
Trials in which fish
oil supplements were claimed to improve
the
performance of school
students.
Bad Science shows how
big stories in health, medicine and
education have been
flagrant distortions of the truth. These
distortions are
frequently promoted by those who stand to
profit
by hiding the truth.
Most of Goldacre's targets are in the
health
sector - from
pharmaceutical companies to homeopaths and
nutritionists.
So I have been
wondering what else a Ben Goldacre might find
in
the worlds of education
and training. What are the scams,
hoaxes
and frauds in education
and training that could be laid bare
by
someone applying a
basic knowledge of science and
statistics? In
the medical world, the
Cochrane committee carries out
extensive
reviews of research
findings in specific medical fields. I
wonder
if there is an
equivalent in the worlds of education and
training?
Actually, I didn't have
to look too far. Ben Goldacre
himself has
made a start for us by
putting 'Brain Gym' and 'Fish Oil'
under
the microscope
(Goldacre can find no reason to recommend
either
intervention). But we
do not need to rely on a medic to
examine
educational research on
our behalf...
Professor John Hattie
has sifted through 500 research
reviews or
'meta-studies' of
teaching methods from around the world. His
summary of findings
from 'effective control group research'
is
presented in a top
twenty list of the teaching methods which
have
the greatest effect on
achievement ('feedback' comes top).
His
analysis included 253
of the most rigorous studies on active
learning. His
findings show that students in the
experimental
group perform (on
average) a grade and a half better than if
they
had been placed in the
control group. Active Learning adds a
grade and a half to
achievement!
Professor John Hattie's
study is referenced below. You will
not
find it referred to in
Bad Science, but I am mentioning it
here
because it demonstrates
how respectable control group studies
have demonstrated
substantial benefits of active learning.
Unsurprisingly, 'Brain
Gym' and 'Fish Oil' do not appear in
Hattie's list of top
teaching strategies. To be included,
teaching strategies
need to have had control group studies
published in a
peer-reviewed journal.
The consequences of
continuing to use strategies that are
discredited is that
even if they are harmless and
ineffective,
they will be diverting
time and resources from the
development of
more successful
strategies. (This is one of Goldacre's
arguments.)
On the other hand, a
demand for proper testing could really
slow
down innovation - if,
for example, teachers are only allowed
to
use strategies and
resources from a scientifically proven
list.
We expect teachers (and
trainers) to make professional
judgements. Making
informed judgements is easier if you have
access to peer-reviewed
research (of Brain Gym, Fish Oil
etc.)
together with an
ability to distinguish between 'science' and
'sciency'. Ben
Goldacre's mission is to show you how even a
basic
knowledge of science
and statistics can equip the lay reader
to
see through the various
scams, hoaxes and frauds ...
So how does this
professional duty to interrogate the
evidence
apply to the practices
that I promote in active learning and
active reviewing? Well
- the Hattie study is a solid start.
But,
unlike the fish oil
pill for which there is a very clear
formula,
the world of active
learning is a little more complex. It is
harder to define.
Reading 'Bad Science'
started me on a journey of enquiring
more
deeply into the
foundations of active learning. It is taking
many
twists and turns which
I will be reporting on in future
issues of
Active Reviewing Tips -
looking a little more closely at
whether
the tips are floating
on sciency fish oil or have a
scientific
foundation.
Buy the book? I
recommend it if you want a readable,
entertaining and
passionate introduction to statistics and
the
scientific method. Bad
Science is mostly about health and
medicine stories. Check
the Bad Science blog if you want a
flavour of what to
expect.
References
Ben Goldacre's Bad
Science Blog
Professor John Hattie's
study is reported on by Geoff Petty
at:
Brain Gym on Newsnight:
Jeremy Paxman's interview with Paul
Dennison, the founder
of Brain Gym
A shorter version of
this book review first appeared on my
Linkedin page at:
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/reviewing>
Quick Links
to Bad Science at
Amazon.com and at Amazon.co.uk
|
|
~ 10
~ About Active Reviewing
Tips
EDITOR: Dr. Roger Greenaway, Reviewing Skills Training 9 Drummond Place Lane
STIRLING Scotland UK FK8 2JF
Feedback,
recommendations, questions:
roger@reviewing.co.uk
phone (UK office
hours): +44 1786 450968
SUBSCRIBE: http://reviewing.co.uk/_ezines.htm
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 |
Each
month Active Reviewing Tips brings you:
|
ARCHIVES FREE Subscription CONTENTS of this issue
HOME |
HELP |