~ 1 ~
EDITORIAL: Reviewing in Twos
~ 2 ~ EVENTS: Active Reviewing
Workshops with Roger Greenaway
~ 3 ~ ARTICLE: Reviewing in Twos
~ 4 ~ THE OTHER NEWSLETTER:
Rebranding Boredom
~ 5 ~ ARCHIVE: Reviewing by Numbers
~ 6 ~ PREVIOUS ISSUE and FUTURE
ISSUES
~ 7 ~ About Active Reviewing Tips
~ 1 ~ EDITORIAL: Reviewing in
Twos
So many of us work in groups that Active Reviewing
Tips is usually about working in groups. This issue
takes a break from the usual focus and looks at what
you can achieve (and how) when you set up
'Reflection in Pairs' - which would also be a
suitable title for this article.
When you reach the end of the full article you might
never again find yourself saying "Find a partner and
talk about ..." because you will have discovered
that there are many better ways of setting up Reviewing in Twos.
There has been a long gap since publishing the last
issue on Learning
from
Triumphs and Disasters. During this period my
writing time has been spent co-writing a book
chapter (which you will hear about when the book is
published), making progress on my new handbook and
writing an article on Reviewing
for
Wellbeing which was published in Horizons. My
wellbeing article should be of special interest to
school teachers and outdoor educators. It also lays
a solid foundation for reviewing with all ages.
And talking of solid foundations, if you have any
colleagues who are hooked on the wisdom contained in
140 character tweets or quote sites, please let them
know that Active Reviewing Tips has substance and
practical value.
Active
Reviewing Tips is a free
newsletter from Roger Greenaway that will
help you to re-charge your reviewing and
facilitation skills.
Typical contents:
- a practical feature on reviewing tips
- links to sites about active learning
methods
- tips, comments and ideas from readers
- what's new in the Guide to Active
Reviewing at http://reviewing.co.uk
Maximum frequency: monthly. Average
frequency: quarterly.
"16 years of
promoting better learning experiences
without chalk, flipcharts or marker
pens."
|
I welcome requests for topics you would like to
see included in Active Reviewing Tips, any questions
you would like to see answered in a FAQ, and
enquiries about trainer-training workshops (open or
in-house).
Roger Greenaway
roger@reviewing.co.uk
http://reviewing.co.uk
Don't
just
do it - actively review it!
~ 2 ~ EVENTS: Active Reviewing
Workshops with Roger Greenaway
26-27th
February
2015
Reviewing
Skills
and Methods for Outdoor Educators
Pixies Holt Outdoor Learning Centre, Dartmoor
Facilitated by Roger Greenaway, Reviewing Skills
Training
Venue: http://www.dartmoorcentres.co.uk
Contact: brendan.stone@babcockinternational.com
Flyer: Download
and
share this pdf
21-22nd
March
2015
How
to Transfer Learning and Give Your Training
Lasting Impact
Timisoara, Romania
Facilitated by Roger Greenaway, Reviewing Skills
Training
Hosted by TrainingMasters
Consulting
Course description and booking details: in
Romanian
Course description in
English
15-18th
April 2015
I am travelling via Hong
Kong on my way to Macau
and I would welcome invitations to provide training
workshops in or near Hong Kong during this period.
Please contact roger@reviewing.co.uk
19-21st
April 2015
In-house training for Don Boscoe Youth Village,
Macau
The above information is copied from
The
Calendar of Reviewing Skills Training Workshops
where you will find the most up to date list of
open/public workshops provided by Roger Greenaway.
The
other
newsletter: the Experiential-CPD Calendar
The Experiential-CPD Calendar lists
'trainer-training' and 'educator-training' events
from several UK
providers. The events listed here are of
interest to facilitators who work indoors or
outdoors. The Experiential-CPD calendar features a
'Thought for the Month' about experiential
learning from the editors or from readers.
~ 3 ~ ARTICLE: Reviewing in Twos
Reviewing in Twos
by
Roger
Greenaway, Reviewing Skills Training
How does the option of reflecting with a partner
best fit into an overall strategy for facilitating
learning from experience? When is reflection best
carried out alone, with a partner or in a group?
What are the best ways of combining these options?
This article will
help you to facilitate effective paired learning.
The context is "reviewing" – you are asking pairs
to reflect on their experiences and you are
providing methods that will engage them fully in
the learning process.
In twos, reviewing can take place with a coach, a
supervisor, manager, partner, friend, relation ...
or even with a stranger. Much of our day-to-day
reflection, whether formal or informal, is either on
our own or with just one other person. In fact,
reviewing with one other person can seem like such a
normal everyday occurrence that we may well think of
it simply as a conversation rather than as a
"review". The term "reviewing" (like
"debriefing") tends to be associated with what
happens in facilitated groups.
Moving a paired learning conversation into a group
setting does not necessarily make it any more
valuable, so let's look at what might be gained and
lost when moving from a paired review to a group
review ...
The benefits that
come from reviewing in twos are not
guaranteed: some pairs may just not "click" with
each other or may simply wander away from the
briefing they have been given. The "benefits"
listed below might therefore be more accurately
described as "opportunities afforded by reviewing
in twos":
In
a
group of 10 each person gets attention for 10%
of the time available - if the time is shared
equally. Whereas in a group of two people, equal
time-sharing gives each person 50% of the time
available.
It
is
easier to sustain reflection on individual
experiences when talking with just one other
person. In a group there are so many other
interesting things to talk about that time for reflecting
on experience can easily get squeezed out out by
other kinds of discussion.
Confiding in one
person feels safer than
confiding in a whole group - whatever ground
rules have been agreed in the group or however
supportive the group might be.
In one-to-one
conversations people tend to give a less
selective and more honest account of what
happened. It feels more OK to elaborate in a
pair than in the whole group.
In
twos
people can more quickly experience a sense of
belonging, acceptance, empathy, mutual
understanding, support, friendship, being valued
and respected. It takes longer to experience
such things at a group level - however effective
your favourite energiser or group reviewing
technique happens to be!
Some
of
these benefits of reviewing in twos can be seen
in sharper relief if contrasted with the kinds
of "editing" that take place in the larger
group: in whole group reviews participants tend
to be more cautious
or don't want to appear greedy
by taking up more than what they see as their "fair
share" of time; or some people may simply
feel that what they might say to one other
person is just not important enough to
say in a group.
Planning for
reviewing in twos
Here
are
some choices you cannot avoid when setting up
reviewing in twos - so it is worth thinking them
through rather than making these choices on
automatic or by default:
How
will
partners be chosen?
If
your
purpose is to encourage lots of fairly brief
conversations, each person simply pairs up with
anyone from the shrinking pool of people they
have yet to pair up with during the exercise.
But if you are setting up something like a
learning buddy system that is to last for some
time (and even beyond the course) then it makes
sense to ensure that pairs are well matched, are
committed to supporting each other and know how
to do so. It takes time to set this up well. By
making the first paired review "a trial session"
participants are less likely to get stuck in a
pairing that isn't working well.
How
long
will participants stay with the same reviewing
partner?
Unless
your
purpose is to establish a long-term learning
partnership (as in the example above) the
benefits of frequent changes usually outweigh
the disadvantages. If people stay in the same
reviewing pairs all the time, there is a risk
that some pairs will be stuck in a low
functioning partnership. It is in no-one's
interest to sustain unproductive pairings – so
ask participants to find a new partner each time
you ask them to review in twos. This strategy is
a kind of safety net that rescues people from
unrewarding partnerships. Expressed more
positively: regularly changing reviewing
partners increases the chances that most of the
time everyone has a good experience of reviewing
in pairs.
What
is
the source of the experience about which you
are asking people to reflect?
The
experiences
being reflected upon can come from many sources.
These include:
-
Reflecting
on
an input such as a presentation,
performance or a film
-
Reflecting
on
group experiences in which the pair
have both been participants
-
Reflecting
on
a paired task that the pair have
just conducted together
-
Reflecting
on
one person's performance in a group
activity that was observed by the other
-
Reflecting
on
one person's experiences – not
necessarily witnessed by the other (For
example, something that happened at work or
in the community.)
-
Reflecting
on
their paired review
Examples
of
paired reviewing methods suited to each of these
situations follow in Section 5
below.
What
roles
can the listening partner take?
The
risk
of ending up with an 'unhelpful' listener can be
reduced by providing clear briefings and by
providing an easy way for the 'speaker' to
change the rules or opt out if they find the
process is not working well. Here are some
potentially helpful roles that the 'other
person' can play when reviewing in pairs:
-
LISTENER:
just
listens - giving the 'reflector' the
opportunity to think aloud
-
SOUNDING
BOARD:
listens and responds to any questions the
reflector may ask
-
SUMMARISER:
repeats
key phrases, summarises, asks for
clarification
-
BUDDY:
notices,
empathises, supports, and possibly advises
-
COACH:
agrees
objectives, provides feedback, and asks
questions that assist reflection
-
INTERVIEWER
(with
a script): asks set questions or follows a
certain review sequence
-
CURIOUS
CHILD:
just keeps asking 'why?'. The reflector can
stop the process at any point.
-
DEVIL'S
ADVOCATE:
tests and challenges what the reflector
says. This needs careful briefing to ensure
that the challenges are provided provided
and perceived as being part of a helpful
process. The reflector should stop the
process if they feel it is no longer of
value.
What
will
you ask people to do when reviewing in
twos?
Participants
are
more likely to stay on task if there is
something for them to do as part of the
reviewing process (other than just talking).
Participants can be asked to make, choose and
use visual communication aids to help them
reflect and communicate – such as diagrams,
maps, pictures or movable objects. Or
participants can be asked to tell the story of
their learning journey as they walk between
points representing stages of their journey. Or
participants can walk and talk together as they
follow a question trail, or as they walk to
different parts of a model that is scaled up to
fill the working space. A review that involves
some degree of movement can help the facilitator
to see at a glance if there are any pairs that
seem to need extra support to engage in the
process. You can find more detailed examples of
these active methods in the
full
version of this article (online)
Will
you
ask pairs to report back in any way?
If
reviewing
in twos has been working well and producing
significant learning there is a risk that any
sharing at the group level is going to be
relatively superficial and less interesting for
speakers and listeners alike: sharing learning
in a group can be an anti-climax. Sometimes such
sharing is primarily for satisfying the
facilitator's curiosity (or for providing a
quality check) rather than for enhancing the
learning of participants.
The more confidence you have as a facilitator
in paired reviewing, the less need there is
for a sharing session. But if it is
important to have a sharing session, consider giving
a separate briefing for this after the paired reviews.
This is because the quality of the initial
paired review can suffer if pairs start thinking
about how they will share their learning before
they have had time to learn anything worth
sharing. (But there are exceptions where
'preparing to share' can help to keep pairs on
task.) It is usually wise
to encourage brevity and creativity
in the sharing method so that the sharing
stimulates responses that add further value.
Will
you
give time for individual work after reviewing
in twos?
If
reviewing
in twos has worked well, then each individual
may appreciate some time on their own to add
their thoughts to their learning journal, their
ideas and applications notebook, their action
plan, their blog, etc. If
you are working within a groupwork paradigm
you may prefer that everything begins and ends
in the group, but if you
are
hoping that
individuals will transfer their learning to
other contexts then
reflecting alone can sometimes
be a more productive way to finish a review
session. Time
for individual recording after significant
reviews will almost certainly assist with the
transfer of learning. Suitably designed group
sessions can also provide powerful ways of
supporting learning transfer. When working in
groups it should not always be assumed that the
end of the process is in the whole group.
Sometimes a paired reflection (without sharing)
is a suitable way of ending a review
session. And sometimes the best ending can be
providing time for individual recording.
Mixing
reviewing in twos with reviewing in groups
Reviewing
in twos can be used at the beginning, middle or
end of a group review. How well people know each
other is a significant factor affecting the
quality of reviews – whether reviewing in a group
or in pairs. If people do not yet know each other
well, their limited knowledge of other
participants limits how helpful they can be.
People get to know each other much faster in a
paired conversation than in a group setting. On
the other hand, pairs may know each other so well
that individuals may feel cramped, uneasy or even
intimidated in each other's presence. Being in the
same pair can be more challenging than being in
the same group.
In
some
situations paired work can help build a better
learning group. When people have been able to
experience deeper engagement in paired reviews
they can feel more engaged in the group as a
whole. If twos are changed frequently then a
series of one-to-one connections can help to
establish a stronger group because more people
feel more understood by more reviewing partners.
Reviewing in twos can result in people feeling
more at home in the whole group even if they
haven't yet spent much time together as a whole
group.
Reviewing in twos can be a really useful and
powerful part of the mix. The best strategy is to
stay alert to the possibilities for reviewing in groups, in pairs and alone. If
unsure ask the group for their views about finding
the optimum balance. They might know best – for
now – because the optimum balance is always
changing.
The full
article
The
full article includes practical examples and a
more in-depth treatment of the topic. The links
below will take you to the full article or to the
section that is of most interest to you:
- Reviewing
in
twos is normal
- Potential
benefits
of reviewing in twos – compared to reviewing
in a group
- Potential
benefits
of reviewing in twos – compared to reviewing
alone
- Planning
for
reviewing in twos
- Matching
reviewing
methods to the sources of experience
- Using
paired
work to encourage reflection in action
- Finding
a
smart combination of reviewing in groups, in
pairs and alone
~ 4 ~ THE OTHER
NEWSLETTER: Rebranding Boredom
Involving
young
people in activity is a common response when they
say they are bored or "there is nothing to do
around here". As a parent, as a teacher and as a
trainer I have felt that providing adventure
activities has been (in part) a welcome antidote
to boredom.
But
I
do remember one occasion where I offered a group
of teenage boys an open choice of adventure
activities and they surprised me by asking to go
fishing. So we did. My surprise was followed by
(my) boredom, but the boys were quite enjoying
themselves not catching fish.
From
their
perspective it seemed that
hanging-around-with-their-pals-not-doing-very-much
in their normal
urban surroundings was boring, but that
hanging-around-with-their-pals-not-doing-
-very-much beside
a remote windswept lake was NOT boring -
despite the absence of fish.
You
can
probably tell that I am not keen on fishing. But
take me to the very same place and call it
"meditation", "reflection", "mindfulness" or
(better still) "wild mindfulness" and there is a
fair chance that I will approach and reframe much
the same experience in a more favourable way.
Ask
me
to stay a whole day or overnight and call it
"solo" and I might enjoy the experience even more.
You could even ask me to stay for a whole month
and call it "Vision Quest". Now that is a bit of a
stretch (rebranding has its limits for me, I
think) but such lengthy sojourns do appeal
to many people.
Much
depends
on what fills the nothingness, the absence of
activity, the absence of people, and the absence
of structure. One advocate of Quiet Time, Val
Nicholls, describes its therapeutic benefits in
her PhD. Others see boredom as a spur
to creativity and imagination. Others see boredom
as leading to self-initiated action or
self-designed play or simply as valuable "me
time". Others see it as a dangerous vacuum that
leads to trouble and chaos.
I was always told that "bored people are boring
people" - so I have long been in the habit of
rebranding emptiness. As a child I would watch
raindrops racing down the window - it was an
engrossing spectator activity! These days I choose
to enter trail races that can last 24 hours or
more. Despite the fact that I am fully engaged in
a challenging activity, friends think I must get
bored on these long runs. Nothing could be further
from the truth!
Perhaps
this
is the makings of a case for including "boredom"
in activity programmes - we just have to be
careful about how we brand it. Any ideas?
Roger Greenaway
These reflections first appeared as a Thought
for the Month in February's Experiential-CPD
Calendar.
PS. I have since learned of some interesting
research (thank you Tim) that was reported in
Science last year:
Just think: The challenges of the disengaged mind
where I learned that:
"In 11
studies, we found that participants typically did
not enjoy spending 6 to 15 minutes in a room by
themselves with nothing to do but think, that they
enjoyed doing mundane external activities much
more, and that many preferred to administer
electric shocks to themselves instead of being
left alone with their thoughts. Most people seem
to prefer to be doing something rather than
nothing, even if that something is negative."
A headline within their report reads: Don't
leave me alone with my thoughts
Perhaps this could be interpreted as further
evidence for having people review
in
twos with something to do,
rather than leaving them alone with only their
thoughts for company?
~ 5 ~ ARCHIVE: Reviewing by
Numbers: facilitating reflection in small and
large groups
What
is
the best sized group for reviewing? 1? 2? 3?
6? 10? 16? 24? 30? 100?
These
are
the sections about "Reviewing in Twos". The
full article is at: http://reviewing.co.uk/articles/reviewing-by-numbers.htm
REVIEWING
FOR
TWO: ROLES FOR REVIEWING IN PAIRS
Talking
things
through
with another person can be more dynamic and
productive than being left with your own
thoughts. Sometimes the other person is just a
listener, but there are many other useful roles
the other person can adopt - such as a sounding
board, a summariser, a buddy, a coach, or even a
devil's advocate. There is no guarantee that the
other person will be good at assisting the
process of reflection. The other person may be
too intrusive or challenging, or may stumble
into 'no go' areas, or offer insensitive advice.
There is always the risk that the other person
(even a skilled facilitator) will spoil, distort
or disrupt the process of reflection. The risk
of ending up with an 'unhelpful' listener can be
reduced by providing clear briefings and by
providing an easy way for the 'speaker' to
change the rules or opt out if they find the
process is not working well.
REVIEWING
FOR
TWO: WALKING AND TALKING
Something
that
goes
particularly well with paired reviews is
'walking and talking' - especially if you have a
suitable outdoor location. 'Walking and Talking'
can be combined with any of the above roles. A
classic problem in paired reviews is that one
person dominates and the time is not well
shared. One solution is to divide the total time
into two halves by having a clear 'swap over
point' at half way (see 'Out and Back'). Another
solution is to have a turn-taking system in
which there is frequent swapping of roles (see
'Chat Cards'). These and other variations of
'walking and talking' are described next:
-
OUT
AND
BACK: 'Out and back' helps to ensure that
the time is divided equally between each
person. Pairs walk out to an agreed point,
swap roles and walk back in their new roles.
(See previous section for ideas about
'roles'.) Ideally, each pair heads for a
different point to avoid distractions from
other pairs.
-
CHAT
CARDS:
Each card has a reflective question. Each
person takes it in turns to answer as they
walk. One question per card helps people to
focus on one question at a time. Just one
good question may be enough for some pairs,
but other pairs may need a plentiful supply
of questions to keep a reflective
conversation going. It is better to have too
many questions than too few.
-
SCAVENGER
HUNT:
Pairs work together to collect symbolic
objects that answer reflective questions.
-
WALKING
ROUND
THE ACTIVE REVIEWING CYCLE: As pairs walk
through each stage the cycle, they focus
their reflective conversation on the stage
they are walking through. In practice this
takes two or three minutes in each stage, so
you either need a huge cycle or people
simply stop and talk until they are ready to
move on to the next stage.
REVIEWING
FOR
TWO: CHANGING PARTNERS
Another
style
of paired review is where people have a series
of brief meetings with different partners. The
speed of this process means that people do not
get stuck in partnerships that are not working.
There may not be very deep reflection during
brief meetings, but a quick succession of paired
reflective conversations can quickly add up to a
lot of reflection from various angles in a short
space of time. Your choice of methods will
partly depend on how important it is that
everyone meets everyone else.
-
MILLING
ABOUT
(for one to one feedback): Find a partner,
give each other one positive statement about
their contribution to the team exercise,
find a new partner and repeat, etc.
-
BRIEF
ENCOUNTERS
(questions and partners keep changing): Each
person starts with a unique question on a
card and finds a partner. Each person
answers their partner's question. They swap
cards and each finds a new partner.
-
SURVEYS
(small
groups specialise in one question):
Subgroups scatter throughout the whole group
conducting brief one to one interviews on
the topic in which they are specialising.
Subgroups meet together again to collate the
answers and report back their findings to
the whole group.
-
MAD
HATTER'S
TEA PARTY: Two lines face each other. People
talk with the person standing opposite. At a
given signal, everyone moves one to the left
and starts talking with their new partner.
The facilitator announces a fresh question
at each move. If the group is too big to
complete a full cycle, set up a suitable
number of smaller groups.
-
CONCENTRIC
CIRCLES:
This is much the same idea as the Mad
Hatter's Tea Party, but is a little easier
to set up and manage. This structure does
not allow participants to have conversations
with people in their own circle, but it does
provide an effective way of meeting and
learning one-to-one with everyone in another
group
-
MATRIX
MEETINGS:
Each individual has a list of everyone's
names. They place a mark beside the name of
anyone they work with on a paired reviewing
exercise of (say) five minutes or more. From
time to time they also enter this
information on a single group matrix that
builds up a picture of who has worked with
whom. A number or letter code can be used to
give basic information about who took which
role during the exercise (e.g. L=learner,
F=facilitator, S= shared). If the target is
to complete the matrix, remember to provide
enough opportunities for paired reviewing
for this to be achievable.
Not
all
pairings work well - one person can dominate,
trust may be low, pairs may decide to take easy
options, or just go through the motions or may
even opt out. Group facilitators may try to
avoid the risks of paired reviews not working
well by keeping everyone together under their
own watchful eye for whole group reflection. But
whole group reflection has its own risks and
disadvantages (such as lack of personal space,
less personal attention and less airtime for
each individual). The challenge is to find the
right mix (and sequence) of different group
sizes (including reflective time alone) so that
there is a good balance between these different
'social settings' for reflection.
Reviewing by
Numbers was published in Active Reviewing
Tips 5 years ago. You can read the full article here.
~ 6 ~ PREVIOUS ISSUE and FUTURE
ISSUES
See the previous issue of Active Reviewing Tips:
Learning
from Triumphs and Disasters
Topics under consideration for future issues
include:
- The Active Reviewing Cycle: update
- Making the case for active reviewing
- Making reviewing a memorable experience
- Reviewing as a takeaway skill for participants
- Evaluating Active Reviewing: how well does it
work?
- Reviewing for different outcomes (using the
same activities)
- End of programme reviews
- Co-facilitating reviews
- The art of improvising
- Remote Reviewing
- Reviewing over a cup of tea (informal
reviewing)
- Readers' Questions about Reviewing (please
feed me with questions for this 'FAQ')
- Sample designs for learning and development
- Integrated practice in experiential learning
(when does an activity become a review? when
does a review become an activity? examples of
integrated practice - and do these
challenge or demonstrate experiential learning
theory?)
Please write to roger@reviewing.co.uk
if you have any topics you would like to see
included or put at the top of this list (which is
not yet in any particular order).
~ 7 ~ About Active Reviewing Tips
TITLE: Active Reviewing Tips for Dynamic
Experiential Learning
ISSN: 1465-8046
EDITOR: Dr. Roger Greenaway, Reviewing Skills
Training
EMAIL: roger@reviewing.co.uk
Feedback welcome
ARCHIVES: Index
of
back issues
HOME PAGE: Active
Reviewing
|