Abstract

Traditionally, experiential activities have been used to challenge a group of people to work collectively to achieve a physically challenging assignment or task. The challenge requires participants to apply skills rather than talk about them. It is, according to Rumsey, "closer to a ‘lab’ than a lecture, Experiential Learning breaks past the learn by passive listening mode and instead requires people to learn by action."

Yet, even if we think about using experiential activities strategically, we commonly apply the frame of the "challenge arena" where participants are challenged to complete the task then talk about what happened during a structured debrief. The focus is primarily on getting the task done and much of the learning takes place in past tense, albeit immediate past ("What did you notice?" How did you feel when . . ." etc.).

This paper and the pre conference workshop it supports, focus on the dual application of experiential activities – the previously mentioned challenge arenas, and "practice fields" – where time is periodically suspended to examine what is happening, rather than what did happen.

In the practice field paradigm the, "debriefing and feedback are immediate. There is no time lag between dysfunctional patterns and reflection on those patterns." In the practice field model, participants get opportunities to use their insights and collective knowledge to practice what they've learned and immediately attempt more effective behaviors.

Our approach adds an element to the process by applying techniques from Kagen’s Interpersonal Process Recall model. Specific techniques recommended include use of videotaping of activities, debrief using the inquirer method and developing skills to become better listeners and more effective communicators.

Introduction

We are living in revolutionary times. To survive the 1990’s and thrive in the next millennium, companies and organizations must satisfy customers and clients in ways seldom seen in earlier times.

People want high quality, reliable products and services, delivered on time at affordable prices. A key difference today is that consumers continuously push their requirements to new levels of performance – higher quality, more dependable and immediate delivery and all at ever lower prices. If they can't get what they want from your company, today's fickle consumer will quickly buy from the competition – no matter where in the world the competitor resides.

Achieving customer satisfaction at lower costs and increasing the bottom line for shareholders is forcing companies to rethink their most basic assumptions and procedures. In the relentless search for new, more effective ways to meet customer needs and demands, company leaders throughout North America are rediscovering the value of people.

"No longer are (employees) mere operatives carrying out tasks assigned by supervisors," writes customer service guru, Karl Albrecht, "now they are customer strategists and quality advocates, as well as task performers." For most organizations, this is a very different way of behaving. One that requires employees to learn new skills beyond those of their day-to-day jobs. Couple that with the pace of technological change and you have a major dilemma on your hands – at the time in their work lives when people need the most training, organizations can ill afford to take people off the job to train them in the tools of the new world of work.

Enter experiential learning. Experiential approaches to learning the "soft" skills of teamwork, communication, collaboration and problem solving gives people a chance to learn new skills in shorter periods of time as they practice applying these skills in a safe environment. As Snow points out, "To gain mastery in any field, learning and theory must be tempered with personal experience. Within a structure for processing and feedback, experiential learning can be highly effective and fruitful."

The idea of learning through experience rather than the traditional lecture at them approach is gaining a large following in the field of workplace education. Echoing Snow, Meeker and colleagues advocate that, "Experience is a very powerful teacher. In many instances it is the only way to translate learning into skills and action." In the rapid pace of work and change, learning must be translated into skills and action, or the learner and the organization risk losing their competitive advantage.

Learning Experientially

The Challenge Arena

If you scanned the literally hundreds of books on the market offering experiential learning of one form or another, most contain activities that take a similar form:

preparation of materials and space

preparation or set up

running the activity

debrief and application

Often, what occurs during the activity is the same type of behavior that is commonly exhibited in their typical workplace behavior. Participants may even agree that they behaved as they always do, so the debrief then turns to "what could you do differently?" where the participants vow to do better in their real life next time. But do they do better? Rumsey and Watkins suggest that, "this format does tend to galvanize people in that two key components for pulling people together quickly and powerfully are present: a clearly defined goal and a clearly defined time constraint." But there is no strong evidence that the galvanization that occurs during the activity has a long lasting effect. So while participants might feel better and understand what is needed to be better, there is no guarantee that they actually do better next time around.

Having designed a number of experiential activities and facilitated hundreds of such learning events, it never ceases to amaze us at how focused people get on achieving the outcome. Particularly in highly competitive work environments, people participate in these activities to "win" or beat the challenge. As long as they successfully complete the task, they can dismiss any of their dysfunctional behavior with, "but we got it right didn't we?" This has led us and others to conclude that the greater benefit of the challenge arena approach is as an assessment tool for finding out where to focus our interventions, or as a tool to quickly bring a group together to experience what it feels like to be a team (pseudo-teaming). It is not as effective as an individual or team development tool.

Practice Fields

In the days of apprenticeships, people were taught their jobs by master craftspeople who explained what needed to get done, showed them how it was done, gave them a chance to do it (learning in bits-and-pieces). This master craftsperson gave them immediate feedback on how they are doing at each step along the way. Sometimes this meant literally standing over them and watching them step-by-step, not allowing them to progress to the next step till they got the previous step right. Suppose this process were applied to experiential learning creating opportunities where participants practice the skills as they go, rather than talking about the skills they will need to employ "next time."

The Practice Field approach contains many of the same characteristics and opportunities of the Challenge Arena. What differentiates a Practice Field from a Challenge Arena is, "that the [facilitator] is not constrained to wait until the action is over to stop an activity, debrief for learning, then resume the activity." Each stop-debrief-resume cycle allows the participants to have an experience, learn from processing it, and apply that learning to a new (ongoing) experience. Sort of learn-as-you-go.

Consider the following example. We developed an activity we call Temple Treasure In this activity, two plastic buckets are placed approximately 30 feet apart. Each is encircled by a rope boundary that prevents anyone from reaching or stepping in to pick the bucket up. Along the sides somewhere are two bucket handles and eight 10-foot lengths of rope. Participants are divided into two groups and told of the myth that requires the buckets to be raised, their positions exchanged and then lowered into their new positions simultaneously. If they fail to complete the task within twenty minutes or fail to make the exchange simultaneously, the entire thing explodes. If anyone reaches or steps into the circles surrounding the buckets, they lose the offending arm or leg.

In the Challenge Arena format, we would let the action flow for the entire twenty minutes then debrief in the usual way. If we apply the Practice Field methodology, we might let the action go until we see something interesting, like one group about to lift their bucket while the other group has yet to touch their resource materials. Here we would call "STOP!" First we might ask participants to look around and comment on what they see/saw happening. We might ask them some questions about their current effectiveness, or ask them to rate their performance along some criteria such as communication, cooperation, etc. Next, we might ask them to talk about what they think they should do differently when the clock is restarted. After hearing their thoughts, the clock would start again and they would proceed with the activity until we stopped the action at another observation point.

There are many ways to approach the Practice Field format. For example, you could institute a ground rule that allows any participant to stop the clock when they are feeling frustrated or ineffective. One thing that is highly recommended is to begin with a ground rule that during the stoppages, the participants cannot talk about the problem or how to solve it. They can only discuss their own performance against the task (i.e. communication, conflict, trust levels, etc.). This method of running experiential activities requires a different kind of facilitation than we may be used to with Challenge Arenas.

Facilitating Practice Fields

In the Practice Field mode the facilitator must be more directive and prescriptive. S/he must observe the interaction and be decisive in determining when to stop the action so as not to decrease motivation or momentum, nor let the frustration levels get too high. After each debriefing and alternative generating stoppage, the facilitator, "requests that learners re-enter the Action phase and "practice right" using the newly suggested behaviors. This allows participants to develop awareness of current behavior patterns and to practice new choices based on that awareness."

The facilitator must be comfortable enough to challenge the group if they fail to practice what they preach. Letting them off the hook, or letting them get too focused on the task rather than their behavior in service of the task, does the group no good. On the other hand, telling the group or teaching the group how to be more effective, can be equally inappropriate. According to Thiagi, the facilitator in the Practice Field model is more of a coach who uses any or all of the following nine tactics:

• ask Socratic questions to focus the attention of the participants on their inappropriate behaviors
• surface the participants’ mental models and hidden assumptions
• point out the differences between the participants’ theories and their practice
• encourage the participants to align their walk with their talk
• propose that the participants think outside the box, and challenge any self-imposed constraints
• help the participants recall appropriate principles and procedures that can be applied to the situation
• work with the participants to devise strategies for overcoming obstacles
• demonstrate appropriate problem solving strategies
• return the participants to the activity so that they can apply their new strategies immediately

Interpersonal Process Recall

Both authors have backgrounds in the human services and came across Interpersonal Process Recall (IPR) independently. The principles of IPR, developed by Norman I. Kagan, Ph.D., date back to research he has conducted at Michigan State University since 1962. Kagan describes IPR as, "a method for learning about communication between people." The goals that result from IPR training are, according to Kagan, directed at developing three general sets of skills:

• the ability to respond in a meaningful way to statements another person is making to you,
• the ability to focus on the affective elements of communication, and
• to learn to allow and help another person to do their own learning, growing and changing without direction from you.

The Inquirer's Role

The Inquirer's role is characterized by confrontive and assertive, yet non-judgmental behavior. A distinction between the seemingly similar roles of inquirer and facilitator is that the inquirer does not interpret, tell, counsel or otherwise point out what they saw. They question, probe and remove communication blocks that prevent people from effectively communicating. Though at first read this may seem rather "touchy-feely", the focus for our purposes remains on opening up lines of communication between the participants in the activity. Our assumption is that opening up communication and appreciating what has meaning and what has heart for each individual will help them explore their assumptions and perceptions. This exploration can lead to shared understanding and ultimately to the shared purpose and collaborative process needed to solve problems, and develop innovative, effective solutions.

Though IPR relies heavily on the videotaping of an activity or session followed by the structured inquiry, the attitudes and approach are equally relevant to practice field approach where time is stopped periodically to "process" what is going on "here-and-now". The attitude the Inquirer must display is one of:

• respectful, interested, active inquiry
• patience for diverse positions and perceptions
• excitement for learning by doing

• exploratory, brief, open-ended questions
• a mixture of questions about thoughts, feelings, meaning and actions
• listening rather than telling, interpreting or coaching
• breaking down of communication barriers, and
• listening and learning

• What are/were you thinking/feeling?
• What pictures, memories or words are going through your mind right now?
• What do you think other members of the group were thinking/feeling?
• Was there anything you wanted to do/say but couldn't find the right form/words for?
• What would you have liked to see others do/say at that point?
• What is standing/stood in the way of the group being more effective?
• How would you rate the group on . . . . . right now?

The Presenters

William (Bill) Matthews is a senior consultant for Prism Performance Systems. He specializes in the areas of large-scale participative change, team and leadership development, Organizational Engineering and experiential learning.

Bill is a frequent speaker and writer on experiential learning, and has presented at numerous national conferences. His activity designs appear in several publications including McGraw-Hill’s Handbook of Team and Organizational Development and Training and Human Resource Development (1997 & 1998 editions). He is also co-author, with Prism’s Tom Buck, of 101 Ways to Power Up Your Job Search, also published by McGraw-Hill.

In addition to his work at Prism, Bill is an adjunct lecturer in education at the University of Michigan where he teaches a course in educational games and simulations. He has held adjunct faculty positions at Wayne State University's School of Medicine, and has trained with Merrelyn Emery, co-developer of the search conference and participative design workshop methodologies.

Terry Swango is a senior associate of Prism Performance Systems and principle of Terry Swango and Associates. His specialties are systems change, program development, design and delivery. He has been involved with personal, professional and organizational development through consultation and training since 1976.

Terry has worked with a number of major corporations as well as with agencies of local, state, and federal government. He has provided training to thousands of people in such areas as facilitation skills, culture change, presentation skills, communication skills, motivation, team building, and the uses of intuition and creativity in management.

Terry has an on-going interest in large system change and the tools for such change. Specifically, he has used Search Conferences (as developed by Emery and Trist) to help systems better involve key stakeholders in the process of charting future direction for the organization. He is also exploring methods of increasing openness in large group discussion to improve the opportunity for the dialogue to occur.