NB:
This is a temporary
page available for only
6
months after the IOL Wales
workshop.
It was specially written for participants at this particular
workshop, and it may not make a lot of sense to other readers who
happen to find this page.
[I hope it makes sense, and is useful to, those who did attend.]
Reviewing
Workshop for IOL Wales at
Outward Bound, Aberdyfi, Sunday
5th July 2009
Extra
notes
and follow-up
by Roger
Greenaway
My priority during the day (reinforced by the Horseshoe question about
pace) was to keep things moving. And the heavier showers also moved us
on quickly at times. But move things too fast and there is less time
for questions, dialogue and explanations. So in these notes, you will
find:
- a summary
of
what we did during the day
- some responses
to questions asked
during the day (what was said at the time plus some extra comments,
links, etc.)
- an invitation
for you to ask follow-up questions
- how to save or print
out this page
- how to save
a copy of the original 16 page manual
(that was available in advance of this programme)
1.
Observation
Walk and Rounds
- what you noticed about self, others
and the environment, ending with a round of "I wonder..."
Good
for setting up reviewing: "the more you notice and the more you share,
the more you will all learn".
2.
Activity
Map
-
four boxes past/future
like/dislike.
Good for
setting up activities - whether for selling them or adapting them.
Another
map: where I work / where I
grew up. (If Tim had
arrived
at this point - from Hong Kong - we would have had to change the scale
a bit!)
3.
Some
Body
/ Scavenger Hunt
Find an
object that represents....
Experiences/events
you don't
want to happen (outside
the body).
Experiences/events you do
want to happen (inside
the body).
Optional extra is to use this for
generating a contract (or understanding) of what kinds of behaviours
will help to create the desired experiences and reduce the chances of
experiencing the unwanted items outside the body.
Strictly speaking
this may not be a 'reviewing' exercise because it involves reflecting
on experiences that might
happen rather than reflecting on experiences
that have
happened. If you keep the body (indoor or outdoor version)
you can go back to it later and then use it as a reviewing tool to look
at
what has actually been experienced so far.
4.
Storyline
- telling a
story while walking along a rope showing the ups and downs of the
story, combined with ...
5.
... Success-focussed
questioning
"What did you or others do or say to help you reach this high point?
What did you or others do or say to help you recover from this low
point?"
6.
Moving Stones
- telling
stories about changes in group dynamics and how an individual sees
themselves in relation to the group.
Version 1: We
used it
as a paired exercise to talk about the changes in a group we worked
with and how our relationship with the group changed.
More typical uses
with young people are:
Version
2:
making a cartoon strip i.e. a sequence of arrangements showing the
history of the group, and even a desired future state.
Version 3:
each individual
finds a place where they create one arrangement showing the group and
how they see their own position or role within it.
Paired
walk:
sighted/unsighted to generate experience to
review
with Empathy Test.
7.
Empathy
Test:
- back to back guessing the height of your partner's hand in answer to
a
question that can be answered on a scale ("How much ...?")
Picnic
Lunch watching showers approaching.
8.
Active
Reviewing Cycle
I
started explaining this sequence in response to a question, but the
rain cut me short. A full explanation is at: http://reviewing.co.uk/learning-cycle/index.htm
You may also like to see this one
page
summary of the cycle (pdf file).
9.
Horseshoe
- feedback on
the day so far. I asked about
- pace vs. quality
- new vs. familiar
- am
likely to use all - most - half - some - none of these techniques.
Horseshoe can
be used for any kind of question that can be answered on a spectrum. I prefer
to use this technique to discover the range of opinions
("Where do U stand on ...?") in which good argument/discussion may lead
people to changing their view. I do not recommend
it
for feelings
(e.g. happy/sad) because feelings are for expressing rather than for
argument or discussion.
A typical use with young people is "We are
improving as a team vs. our teamwork is not improving". It can be used
for looking at issues outside the
group
(such as environmental issues) or issues
about the group
(such as "We are good at supporting individuals / including everyone /
planning / problem-solving / giving useful feedback / tidying up").
Horseshoe is less
well suited to statements about self
(such
as "I am good at supporting others / including others / tidying up"). Spokes
is far better suited to self-evaluation and (positive) feedback about
individual performance - for all the reasons you discovered when trying
out Spokes..
10.
Sim
Survey
(Simultaneous
Survey).
The
questions were about:
- pleasant surprises
- ideas you will adapt in some
way
- principles you can draw out
from what we have done so far
- how
this event has renewed something in you
- how you are beginning to
think
differently
- what are the benefits of
reviewing outdoors?
These
questions were clearly chosen as questions related to this event. Any
time you feel you have around 6 questions you want to ask or discuss,
this can be a useful way of getting everyone involved from the start. I
liked the idea of making the report back a bit more imaginative - if it
suits the group and the topic. So choose suitable topics if you want a
creative/drama-based report back.
No
Ball Game
(rounders) was played to generate experience to review with Action
Replay
(and other techniques)
11.
Action
Replay
The
interview questions can
come from any part of the active reviewing cycle (facts, feelings,
findings, futures) but the questions are best improvised in response to
the situation rather than scripted. After a brief demonstration you
will probably want to hand over the microphone (and remote) to
participants so it is they
who come up with the questions, leaving you
with the role of intervening if you feel that their questions are
insensitive, inappropriate or not as productive as they could be. You
are not necessarily the sole judge of what is appropriate. You may wish
to ask the group to set and monitor the 'sensitivity' settings on the
questions asked - without giving away all your authority to use your
veto should
you feel this necessary.
We played Action Replay for fun (very appropriate as this
reflected the general tone of the No Ball Game). I shared three other
reasons for using action replay:
- to celebrate a success
- to
expose and deal with issues splitting the group - in a way that brought
them together
- to reencat a problem from
outside the
programme
and use the group to suggest alternative choices that the individual
could have made at key moments.
My favourite use on residentials would
be close to example 2 (above) where the experience being replayed is a
mixed
one - with some fun, some achievement but also with some problems to
solve or individual or group 'mistakes' to highlight and face up to.
Our demo was fun-filled, but I generally use the tool in a much more
balanced way and I find it is an excellent tool for confronting
individuals or groups with 'darker' experiences. Depending on the
issue,
some groups like to exaggerate group problems (as their
preferred
way of acknowledging the problem) - but issues relating to individual
weaknesses should
usually be played straight and sensitively. You are basically providing
an opportunity for an individual to confess/come clean/apologise/make
up by putting them back in the situation where they underperformed or
misbehaved.
Tea
and Cake
12.
Hokey
Cokey
- using the natural markings in
the rock. An alternative to Rounds
in which people speak when ready to
speak, and if stuck (towards the end of the process) can be helped out
by others who give them something to say or who give positive feedback
if
the question is about what they individually contributed. The
statements that I asked for were:
- Something we did well
- Something I
did well.
You can make this more interesting and more specific by
asking for statements that relate to course objectives or to some of
those clichéd generalities that have already been mentioned
in previous
reviews. For example:
- I was supported by
... ; I gave support to ...
- I influenced others in a
positive way by saying/doing ...; I
followed the leadership of others/someone when ...
- I made a real effort
when ... ; I praised someone else's effort when...
- I brought attention to
safety when ...
It is usually, but not
always, important to find some way of getting everyone into or out of
the circle. It depends on the nature of the question and on how strict
or generous you want to be. Although pairs of questions have a nice
symmetry about them, there is no need to find paired questions. The one
we did had a nice balance between 'I' and 'we' - which is a key balance
to consider in all reviews. (Clichés about teamwork tend to
be
more prevalent with we statements.)
13.
Missing
Person
-
talked about but did not do
it because the sand was a bit muddy and time was moving on. We could
have spent the whole day on the beach near the village where the sand
is more pleasant - and there are plenty of stones. But I am pleased we
didn't because
(a)
there was less shelter from the showers on the beach
(b) there
was less variety of environment and stuff to use
(c) I suspect that
most of you spend more time working in inland environments than you do
on
the seashore.
In 3 separate groups you could have made three missing
people:
- one who would have been
useful to have had around during the
rounders game
- one who would have been
useful to have around during the
whole day
- one who would be useful to
have around during your
future programmes.
You could
divide the missing person in two to see
what you have got and haven't got if you want to identify priorities
for an action plan. But in most cases I like to keep with the spirit of
the original "tall back Matt" and hope that the group sees the new
group
member as a friend who continues to grow and develop along with them.
But don't push it. For some groups the mascot lives on and brings them
together. For others it was just a useful exercise which they are happy
to leave behind once completed. I once had an adult group that refused
to make a missing person and came back with a blank sheet of paper
saying they had all the skills and talent they needed in the group
already. After momentary disappointment,
I said this was one of the most positive responses to the exercise I
had ever witnessed and that they had simply taken a short cut to where
the other groups were heading - because the process is all about
encouraging people to bring out the potential skills and talents that
are already there in the group. (The message: don't let details obscure
the bigger purpose.)
14.
Spokes
Questions need to be about
observable
performance - so that individuals have a basis for assessing themselves
and also so that participants can invite others to move towards the
centre
based on their (observable) performance. It can be wide open (How much
did you contribute to group performance?) or it can be more specific. I
asked about:
- question asking
- giving creative input
- supporting others
- giving energy
15.
Knot Talking
Yes this did originally
come
from Jim
Cain's Raccoon Circles. But I have adapted it a bit. Another useful
adaptation you can make is to change the brief every few minutes:
- starting with questions
and statements relating to the past
(typically the activity just
completed)
- moving into questions
and statements about the present
- and
then into questions and statements about the future
(the next activity
and/or links to school/work etc.)
Yes
it can be confusing if you have
several questions around at the same time, but I quite like such
confusion. (In smaller groups it is less confusing anyway.)
Even if the confusion is a minus point, I think it is a small price to
pay for the benefits. Benefits include:
- regular opportunities to
opt
in
(so everyone can have as much thinking time as they want before
speaking up)
- very democratic
(everyone has the chance to intitiate
discussion with a question or a statement)
- novelty and fun
- people
feel engaged
when touching
the rope
- and if the rope is the
right size
it draws everyone in close
and leaning forwards - which is not always
the kind of body language you get in a review circle.
By
the way - I
would usually use 'Knot Talking' as a seated
activity. My preferred
name is 'Knot Talking' because tha is often how it starts - people
start moving the rope round and there can sometimes be a few rotations
before somebody says something. I happen to like silences if they are
silences in which people are thinking about what they want to state or
ask.
Responses
to questions asked
(what was said at the time
plus some extra comments,
links, etc.)
1. Sequencing
- relating to how you sequence reviews and/or
choose suitable techniques so that you connect forwards as well as
backwards.
The sequence I started to describe is presented in full at http://reviewing.co.uk/learning-cycle/index.htm
There are other sequences you may know ('do, review, apply' or 'what?
so what? now what?' or even Kolb's wordy cycle. But all are a bit thin
in terms of the guidance they give to the details of the reviewing
process.
For example (with a few notable exceptions such as John Heron) emotions
and intuition
tend to be omitted or
played down in experiential learning models. Sometimes this is because
it is assumed that the
experience happened during
the event and that the main purpose of the
review is to analyse
the experience. But key learning (and growth)
arises when people learn to express their feelings (maybe with
Storyline) or relive their feelings (maybe through Action Replay) or
discover how
wrong they are at guessing the feelings of others (Empathy Test).
Another key area in which other cycles are 'thin' is with regard to the
future. You will discover in the description of the club card
(representing the future) that there are many different and worthwhile
ways of approaching the future other than with a plan or a
commitment. Most learning cycles are interpreted as being about coming
up with a plan of some kind at the end - which is not always the
most productive
way of completing the cycle.
One feature of Kolb's model I do like is
that the future stage of 'active experimentation'
involves both a question
(in the experimentation) as well as action.
But even this
is thin
compared to the other fruitful ways in which you can approach the
future. I used to do a lot of work on 'choices' with young people (a
very different way of approaching the future) and several of you seem
to work a lot with consequences - which sounds like yet another
worthwhile way of approaching the future (presumably anticipating
consequences).
Most of my reviewing methods are indexed by where they belong in the
Active
Reviewing Cycle - some are good
for bringing out facts,
others
for bringing out feelings,
others for analysis
and judgement
and for
bring out findings/learning,
whereas others are good for future
work.
Some reviewing methods are multipurpose, but most have a phase of
reviewing to which they
are best suited. But sequencing is only part of the picture. In
everything we do there is an order
(or sequence) with which we do
things as well as a quality
with which we do it. So for an alternative view
focused on quality,
see my article on Reviewing
for Development.
2. Critical/negative
stuff - techniques for
dealing with issues/weaknesses and not
just success and achievement.
A few years ago I really got enthused about success-based approaches to
learning, and I put together a whole section on my website about
reviewing
success. It is probably time
that I put together a
balancing section on reviewing failure/problems. The methods during the
day most suited to negatives/failure/problems/difficulties are:
- moving
stones
- action replay
- horseshoe
- sim survey
- missing person.
Concerning the giving of critical feedback, there are two pages on my
website about feedback:
- This
page shows a different
application of
the active reviewing cycle - showing how people are more receptive to
feedback that is associated with the early stages of the cycle, and
more resistant to feedback associated with the later stages. Although
there are a few exceptions, the more tricky the situation the less
useful 'techniques' become and plain speaking / straight talking
becomes the best option. Even so, an awareness of the reviewing cycle
(as it is applied to feedback) can really help by establishing
facts and acknowledging feelings before getting into judgements or
advice or demands.
- This page
describes Gifts
(which I mentioned) as well as Warm
Seat
which is probably the most direct and straightforward
feedback method.
3. What kind of questions
go
with each technique? ... because the
technique is relatively simple, but the real skill is in finding the
right question to go with the technique isn't it?
In my summary of techniques above I have included some examples of
questions used on the day plus suggestions about other suitable (or
unsuitable) questions. A number of techniques are primarily
designed to bring out questions from participants e.g.:
- Observation Rounds:
I wonder ...?
- Knot Talking:
the question knot.
- Action Replay:
interviewer improvises questions.
But for other techniques it is useful to have some questions up your
sleeve, or in your back pocket ...
- The Active Reviewing Cycle
includes a
page on useful questions to ask
at different points of the cycle.
- For Sim Survey
you can provide questions or ask the group to generate
questions.
- For Empathy Test,
Hokey
Cokey and Spokes
it is good to have
some questions written down in advance, but I have yet to create many
sample questions for these. I have provided some common examples to get
you going. Once you are familiar with the technique, you will soon
discover which questions get worthwhile responses from the groups you
work with.
4. I know a different
version
of
this technique. Is it any
better or any worse?
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Try both versions and see
which you prefer or which works best. The techniques I have devised,
developed or adapted suit me very well, but there are plenty of other
good ideas out there that may better suit you and the groups you work
with.
Although I provided some very detailed tips (like speaking into the
microphone when interviewing, or adjusting for height difference in
Empathy Test) I mostly aim to help people understand the essence
of a
technique rather than expect people to copy every detail. Once you've
got the essence
you can adapt it to make it your own - especially when
working in the outdoors where there are so many variables to consider.
5. Is there more
information
about reviewing on your
website?
I said about three books full. One day they will be available in book
form. Meanwhile most appetites for reviewing methods will be fully
satisfied by browsing my site. Good places to begin are:
*all my bookshop profits go to Save the Children
6. Do you provide longer
workshops?
For some time my standard workshops have been a two day
programme on
reviewing and a two day
programme
on the transfer of learning. I
have
provided reviewing skills training programmes up to 6 days. My longer
programmes are generally for single organisations where it is possible
to work much more closely with the specific nature of that
organisation's programmes and clients - and where my own programmes or
more
tailored than open programmes can be. Some programmes (like today's)
are very much on an outdoor theme such as reviewing with
young people outdoors
or outdoor
management development
7. Does your website provide links to other useful sources?
Yes. These pages are the most outward looking ones that could be of
interest to you:
8.
Transfer
(asked after the programme)
The transfer of learning is a topic that tends to mean
something
a bit different with different ages of participants. Unless there are
specific behaviour problems as the focus of a programme, or unless
schools have some specific curriculum links clearly in mind, youth
programmes tend to be about general development and we hope that young
people will find opportunities 'somewhere', 'sometime' to apply their
new found confidence,
social skills, interest in activities/nature etc. The typical situation
with youth programmes is that transfer is left to chance. I happen to
believe that young people have a right to certain experiences and that
these include outdoor experiences in a facilitated peer group
that
are positive and developmental. I understand that courses are more
valuable if they transfer to real life, but I do not think that
arguments from the training sector automatically apply to the education
sector. From young people's point of view their outdoor experiences are
often more real than real life anyway, so the question might become:
'How
can things be more real in their day to day life?'
I guess I have answered a question with a question, but if you would
like to read my article about transfer and the outdoors please take a
look at my article on 'How
Transfer
Happens'. The primary context is
outdoor management development, but some points to have a wider
relevance.