(About a 15-minute read. The Channels Project is a migration and updated post - it was first shared at the FUNdoing.com Blog. We are moving theoretical posts to OnTeamBuidling in an effort to organize content.)
NOTE from Chris: This is an example of some 'Deep Work' programming - not meant to be quick and easy. The Channels Project combines team building behaviors and learning to understand the New Bloom's Taxonomy and how it can influence mindful experiences.
Those of you familiar with the original Bloom's Taxonomy know that it is a "classification of learning objectives" divided between the Cognitive, Affective, and Psychomotor learning domains. The intended goal of the Taxonomy, "is to motivate educators to focus on all three domains [and the different "levels" or "ways" of thinking], creating a more holistic form of education."
Using this New Taxonomy as a teacher (over the last 20 years), helped me focus on designing test questions that touched on the all the "orders" of thinking - including some basic "fact-based" questions like defining terms (lower-order thinking), up to "creating" something like a skills-based drill to practice throwing a ball (higher-order thinking). What I like the most about this revision to Bloom's is the inclusion of the "creating" process - something we like to do in adventure education. Creating is at the higher order thinking skill level in this new model and as an evaluation focus helps me to see what a student can put into practice. (Here is an 8-minute read for more, from Dr. Robert Talbert: Re-Thinking Bloom's Taxonomy for Flipped Learning Design.) A similar article (no longer available), back in 2012, inspired the Channels Project. Shortly after this 2012 read I set out to create an activity that could move a group through the ways of thinking to help educator groups understand and remember the areas of the revised (or 'new') Bloom's. The interesting discovery was that the ways of thinking are also obvious question prompts for the reflective process throughout the activity and during the processing session after the activity. The final twist to exploring the New Bloom's here is the notion of 'flipping' the model. We don't always have to start with lower-order thinking experiences (e.g., easy team building activities) and move up to something more complex. It's completely doable to jump into the complex and then back-track down the orders to uncover the learnings. So, here we go! The Channels Project Needs & Numbers (for each group in play):
The Channels Project Directions
The Channels Project works well with 8 to 10 in a group. Multiple groups can work through it at the same time. (Maybe some collaborative interaction can happen?)
Time: This one has the potential to go for 30 to 90 minutes depending on the group(s) and the time you spend with discussions (and collaborations with multiple groups). Consider the possibility of spending two class sessions on this one if you are working in a school context. Set-Up: (For each group of 10 to 12 participants.) Mark the corners of a 25-foot sided square boundary area (can be indoors or outdoors) with the four cones. Place one chair inside the boundary area about 5 feet from each corner and an equal distance from each side. Place the wide-mouthed container directly in the center of the boundary area (wide-mouth up). Place one rollable object, that has been placed in a small cup (or bowl), at each of the corners of the boundary area - just outside the boundary area. Set down all the other supplies somewhere near the outside of the boundary area. 
Objective: (Here is one possible script to introduce the activity):
The objective of The Channels Project is to create a transportation system of channels inside the boundary area designed to move all the 'vital resources' (small rollable objects in the cups) from their place of origin (the cups can be Factories ) to the central container (the Warehouse). Procedure: The expectation is to move all the vital resources available to you into the warehouse in 20 minutes. At some point during the movement of each vital resource, it must include the following action steps while inside the boundary area [read from 'The Channels Project Directions' handout you will be giving the group]: Each vital resource must 1) STAY OFF the ground (or Floor), 2) roll OVER something, 3) go UNDER something, 4) move AROUND something, 5) travel THROUGH something, 6) go BETWEEN two things, 7) travel HORIZONTALLY outside the channels, 8) drop DOWN through the air, and 9) move UPWARD. These actions do not need to go in the order listed on the directions I have for you; they simply need to be included with each vital resource. [Even though my groups have asked me to clarify some of these requirements, I've simply said, I will leave that up to you, as a group, to decide how you integrate these actions.] During the activity I will also ask you to adhere to the following Rules of Play: [Reading from the handout again, I share these Rules of Play before letting the group(s) start their work.]
Continue with the following information before the group is allowed to begin:
Please use the blank paper found in your supplies to diagram your plan of action. Included in The channels Project Directions, there is a graphic called, Bloom's Taxonomy. Reference this list attributes as you work through the planning of your transportation system. Here's the idea... After creating your transportation system plan evaluate and analyze how it works - you can practice your plan outside of the boundary area. Think about possible improvements to your system and apply changes if needed. After you reach your objective (or not, due to time limitations or loss of supplies), we'll take some time to talk about what you've come to understand and want to remember about your experience. If you were unable to meet the objective in 20-minutes, you can plan and implement another attempt today or the next time we meet. I'm now ready to answer any questions you have before starting the activity.
Reflection Questions:
As you can see, this experience will take time to work through. Use some of this time to check in with you group(s) and prompt some thinking and discussion about what's happening during the process , as well as the end. Here are some questions to consider:
I believe programming 'projects' like this can help our students (and other clients) dig into Deep Work. Life is not alway about 140 characters. Diving into a longterm endeavor builds tenacity and resilience. We can forge relationships because we get to know our group over time, through failures and success. We'll disagree but find common ground. We'll get to the end and determine what we did well and what we need to improve. Then, together, we'll take on the next project.
What other Deep Work can we program as team builders? We'd love to hear your ideas - leave us a Comment. All the best, Chris Cavert, Ed.D.
0 Comments
(About a 7-minute read)
Over my career as a team building facilitator, I have gravitated towards resources or tools that are made up of three parts. For example, the "What? So What? Now What?" processing model. The Traffic Light norming tool, "What do we want to stop doing (red)? What do we want to be cautious of (yellow)? And what do we want to go for (green)?" The typology of team interactions - Team Bonding, Team Building and Team Development. I've found threes are easy for me to remember and they are simple to introduce but hold a wonderful complexity when we dive in.
I recently found another threes tool, a little different than some of my others. It's not a three-parter, but a three-word phrase, "What's Important Now," or W.I.N. - The acronym is what I'm practicing to remember. I've put this W.I.N. in my toolbox as an in-the-moment assessment tool. Let me share a little information from the source to lead you into how I connected this tool to my work as a team builder. W.I.N. is from the book, Essentialism: The Disciplined Pursuit of Less, by Greg McKeown (2014). The acronym is found in the section titled "Focus." McKeown credits, "What's important now?" to Larry Gelwix, a High School Football coach. Gelwix and McKeown share some insights about W.I.N. in relation to individual and team applications. As you read these insights, consider how they can relate to a team builder and even to the group a team builder is working with. (NOTE: If you find yourself 'reacting' to some of the words included in the insights, try to consider other ways the words can be interpreted.)
Below I share how I made the connections between the insights and team building. But before you read what I'm thinking, what are you thinking right now? If you're struggling with the semantics (e.g., game & playing), what else can the words mean? (Recently I heard Tim Farriss say, "We want to know what game we're playing, so we know how to play effectively and efficiently." If you're holding the word 'game' in your mind as a negative thing, consider a metaphor meaning.)
From my facilitator perspective, if I get too focused on something that didn't just work (first insight), I will miss the next opportunity to do a better job. "What's important now?" snaps me back to the moment - to "right now" (second insight) so I can "operate at my highest level of contribution" (third insight). By focusing in on the "here and now" my group and I can continue to make headway toward their desired outcomes - sticking to the strategies we're learning to meet the outcomes (third insight).
From a group's perspective, after I introduce the tool to them, they can also use the W.I.N. reminder. Individuals can self-reflect 'in-the-moment' to determine what's important at any given time (first insight).
Now, as team builders, we know that working out a problem that just took place might be the most important thing to do in that moment - using W.I.N. prompts the reflection to make the choice to stop or move on without dwelling on past behavior. For individuals, using W.I.N. can help remind them about how they are "playing" in the moment (second insight). Is what they're doing helpful to the group or not helpful? And what choices do they want to make moving forward. How can individuals unite in ways that contributes to the group's strategies for success? Finally, how does each person operate within their "highest level of contribution" (third insight) to the group? And how does the group find out about, encourage and support these contributions? W.I.N. is a new tool for me. I'm ready to experiment with what it can do. At times when his groups are 'stuck' unable (or unwilling) to move forward, my friend Tom Leahy likes to ask them, "Would you like a tool?" If they are interested, he provides them with one he believes could help them overcome their barrier. I've learned to use Tom's question with my own groups. Now I'm excited to share this one at the right time, with the right group.
All the best,
Chris Cavert, Ed.D.
P.S. Would you like a super-quick update when new OnTeamBuilding content is posted? Just fill out the form below and then click the big blue button. I'll keep you posted.
(About a 5-minute read.)
I first read about 'lagging indicators' from a new-year focused (2023) blog post from Ryan Holiday (author and Stoic thought leader - I created the activity, Obstacle Reflection using quotes from one of his books). A lagging indicator is an "output measurement" (according to a quick Google search). As Holiday puts it, "All success [or lack of it] is a lagging indicator." Lagging indicators give us vital data.
Specific to team building, what does success look like to you? What personal success do you consider? What contextual success do you measure? More often than not, I measure success in relation to the goals I set for myself. For example, one of my ongoing goals is to try a new activity (or a unique variation of an old favorite) during each program I facilitate. My lagging indicators (outcome measurements) show up in relation to how well I prepared for the new activity. I've found that the more time I spend thinking about and writing out the activity the better the outcomes - I've taken the time to prepare myself. I put in the work. In Holiday's post, he says: Nothing comes from nowhere. Not success. Not inspiration. Not the muses. Not writer's block. Everything is a lagging indicator of whether or not you did the work.
Using lagging indicators as data is important to our growth as team builders. It's why there is a lot of advice about taking time to reflect on your facilitation immediately after a program (intraspectively and/or with other facilitators). Here are a handful of after-program reflections:
After-program reflection does not need to take a lot of time (unless you want it to). Use indicators to identify what's working - recognize and repeat. (Don't forget to celebrate the goodness!) Then determine what didn't work well (maybe just one thing) and make a plan to change it for next time. In most cases, based on my experience, when I've planned well with purpose, programs go well. When I put in the work and create of program I believe will lead my groups' to their outcomes, I see more 'success.' (It's that old saying, "You get out of it what you put in.") Moving Forward What are some of the lagging indicators you want to work on? How are your processing skills? How are you feeling about 'opening' programs? How are you at wrapping up or 'closing' a program? Do you know enough activities to plan for a wide range of diverse groups (if you want to work with a wide range)? How are your online team building facilitation skills? How much work needs to go into meeting your goals? Can you (will you) put in the time? Lagging indicators will show you where to focus the work. All the best, Chris Cavert, Ed.D.
P.S. Would you like a super-quick update when new OnTeamBuilding content is posted? Just fill out the form below and then click the big blue button. I'll keep you posted.
 (About a 5-minute read - and some thinking time. This is a migration and updated post - it was first shared at the FUNdoing.com Blog. We are moving theoretical posts to OnTeamBuidling in an effort to organize content.) Purpose Statement: The "Let's Think..." series is meant to be a reflective tool for team building educators. There are lots of 'right' answers to the questions or statements. Considerations are subjective and relative to each educators environment, program boundaries and their training. A 'hat-tip' goes out to Jim Grout and the High 5 Adventure Learning Center - their "Caught you Thinking" process always keeps me thinking! I have an open document on my computer and one on my phone called "Running Notes" - these documents contain random thoughts I have about anything from team building activities to recipe ideas. Recently, I was reviewing these notes and had a few entries I marked as, "thoughts to work through." I thought it might be interesting to see what your thoughts are on these thoughts:
This FUNdoing Post (that is updated here), also included one Comment from a fellow team builder, P.B. - I didn't want to leave them behind. Again, one person's perspectives. There are many more from many others. WHERE TO STAND - I normally have groups stand in a circle with me being a part of that circle, so that they can see and hear me and i can see and hear them. I like to have groups name/categorize the circle and have poses to go with them (superhero circle, airplane circle etc), so that i can shout out the name of the circle and have them form it and know i have immediate attention. Adults posing as airplanes is particularly funny to me. WHAT MIGHT WE LOOK LIKE - I wear a staff uniform as required but will tend to wear something silly and colorful alongside it but hesitate to address it to allow humor to initially break the ice with a group. But it does depend on the group. Some groups expect professionalism (although in my mind i have fun and play for a profession). HOW LONG TO PLAY - I try to nip the activities in the bud at the peak of them or just past it, just before disinterest sets in. Im an advocate of a CHALLENGE course and not a SUCCESS course. If a group does not succeed then that leads onto some excellent processing. But ending an activity is a judgement call, some groups want to persevere and get more out of completing an activity and some lose interest and morale. This is definitely an area of discussion that i have thought about a lot and would love extra input on. What are your thoughts about these questions? What else can we 'think' about? Leave us a Comment so we can learn and grow together.
All the best, Chris Cavert, Ed.D. 
(This is a migration and updated post - it was first shared at the FUNdoing.com Blog. We are moving theoretical posts to OnTeamBuidling in an effort to organize content.)
This post was inspired by Katie, a team builder, adventure educator and FUN Follower. Her situation is a common tale - she wanted something different. (An aside - I'd love to study what motivates team builders to want something different. I know some that don't - and it works for them.)
In an email Katie told me: My favorite name game is Group Juggle because it seems to be the most helpful in actually learning names. But, after you facilitate it for the hundredth time it's time for something different. Then she asked, Do you know of any [other name games] that are as helpful and active as Group Juggle that work with youth and adults? In my response to Katie (along with some suggested Name Games), I said that I know "Name Games" in two ways:
I also told Katie that if the facilitator actually takes the time after an activity (like Group Juggle) to go around and ask for volunteers to call out as many names as they can, then we're practicing and learning names (and offering a "challenge" as well - Who will take the risk at making a mistake?). A win-win learning opp in my book. (But, in my experience, I don't see this happening very much by team builders who use name games - it might not be necessary, or it simply might not seem important enough. Learning names important enough - don't get me started.) If I'm playing a 'name game' with my group, it is always for the facilitated objective of learning and practicing names. The goal is to learn names, any other outcome is secondary (and certainly a good way to get some 'mileage' out of an experience). Below is my all-time favorite way to use a Name Game for learning and practicing names in a fun and purposefully stressful (educationally speaking) way.
Toss-a-Name Game & Testing Out Toss-a-Name Game comes from the first edition of Silver Bullets (Rohnke, 1984). For a circle of about 24 participants, you need a bunch a safe tossable objects (safe enough to hit the cranial regions without damage - not that we're doing this on purpose, but there is a possibility of cranial contact!). I show up with at least one tossable for every two people.
One object starts the action. The person tossing the object (anyone can be chosen to start the first object) is asked to:
The next person to possess this first object (since the intended person might not get the toss), follows the same PTP - name, connection, THEN toss. This one object goes around the group, without stopping, in any which-way - no 'pattern' is required (like in Group Juggle). Once the PTP process is understood, after a minute or so, I will then stop the action and tell my group about Testing Out. Here's a possible script: Now that you understand how PTP works, I would like to give you a challenge - remember, it's your challenge, it's your choice, so it's up to you if you want to try "testing out." We're going to continue the activity, following PTP. After a few minutes I will stop the process and ask who would like to test out on Names. If you are up for the challenge, the first thing you will need to tell me is what grade you want to go for - this means, getting 90% or more names correct gives you an "A" grade. (For an A+ you need to get all the names correct.) A "B" is in the 80th percents, a "C" is in the 70th percents, and so on. If you don't get the grade you want, you can try again after another round of tossing play. "Testing out" on names has proven to be a successful challenge for my groups. Even though there is no real grade given (nothing is written down), going for the "grade" seems to influence the learning process and (self-) motivates (most) participants to practicing names as they toss objects around the group (and noticing other names when they are not tossing). If a person doesn't know someone's name they can ask for help, "Hey, you in the red shirt, please help me out. What is your name?" Once a name is given, then it's practice time - name, connection, THEN toss. Increasing the Challenge Level Now, something else starts happening in Toss-a-Name Game. While PTP is going on, more objects are added to the process when the facilitator feels the group can handle more - I add one new object every minute of so. All the tossing about creates some distractions, anxiety and fun (now you get the cranial reference) while the potential learning is going on. Okay (don't forget), after every couple of minutes, stop the action and ask if anyone wants to test out. In the beginning, I might simply ask, Who thinks they have 50% of the names? Maybe 70%? How about 80%? (You get to see if there is some learning going on and if someone may have the confidence to try and test out - those 90 percenters.) Okay, who's willing to try the test? I'll take two or three volunteers. I ask for the grade they want then let them have at it. We all celebrate every person's attempt, whether it was a success in their eyes or not - because they can try again another time. One of the secondary facilitated objectives of this activity experience is to show the group how you are all creating a safe learning environment - if you take a "risk" we will support you. With that said, I am always one of the first to "test," and I usually have to try a few times before I get my A+. (I show my group I'm willing to take the risk as well - and willing to "fail" and learn from the process.) Now, you might be thinking, Testing is the outcome Chris! I thought you said learning names was the outcome? Again, I see testing as the motivator - something of choice is on the line. Each person chooses her/his own grade (goal) if s/he even wants to test out, does their best and celebrates the attempt knowing they gave it a shot (took a risk in a safe environment). This is setting the stage for (leading into) the kinds of activities and experiences coming up in the program. There will be some risk involved, but if the group can practice supporting each other during their risk-taking, they will find success - in the many ways they define it. All this, you can do with a Name Game. Katie, thanks for letting me share your question. If any of you out there want to share your favorite Name Game, leave us (Katie and me) a comment below. Thanks! Have FUN out there! Chris Cavert, Ed.D. P.S. For me, my most practiced way of learning my students/participants names is to have them create Name Cards (like the ones we use for, Name Card Return that uses names). I'm practicing during the activity, then after I continue to shuffle through the Name Cards as they are working in order to practice and remember. I can usually know, and remember everyone's name (I'm good with this process up to about 30 people) within an hour.
Would you like a (super) quick email notification when new OTB content (blog post or podcast episode) is available? Fill out the form below and we'll let you know.
I want to share this information (resource) in order to support some of the work you do as a team builder. It would be a pretty good bet that this will not be new to you. Use it as a useful reminder and reference - a guiding star maybe, if the light works to inspire.
In 1998, a United Nations Inter-Agency Meeting was held at the World Heath Organization's Headquarters. The aim of the meeting "was to generate consensus among United Nations agencies as to the broad definition and objectives of life skills education and strategies for its implementation..." As promoted by WHO, "Life skills education is aimed at facilitating the development of psychosocial skills that are required to deal with [manage] the demands and challenges of everyday life." (Reference: "Partners in Life Skills Education" document, 1999. NOTE: This document is a seminal work focused on the importance of the specific skills [concepts] listed below. Other 'kinds' of life skills education have been added - see the WHO.Int website for more.)
My take on this information, based on searching "Life Skills" at various site, is that these skills are just as relevant, if not more so today, than they were when documented over 20 years ago (and even before 1999). As team builders, we can continue to practice and build these skills and use the WHO reference, "according to the World Health Organization," if some validation is needed to make your point. (I hope, at this point, these needed skills are pretty common knowledge!)
To enhance your 'purposeful programming,' the idea is to connect these skills into the activities you are using in order to practice the skills. Use the language to help your participants 'name' what they are practicing. When we can name something it is often easier to identify what we are doing, what we can be doing and how we can talk about it with others. Then, we can get better at using the skills. Life Skills [Concepts] we can work on together during team building:
Going Deeper
If you want to become REALLY GOOD AT helping groups practicing these Life Skills, get more specific. I interpret the items on the list above as 'concepts' - a "general idea derived from specifics." The specifics being 'skills' - things you can see and hear (in other words, behaviors). This overall point of view is rooted in Behaviorism. I have learned that Behaviorism is 'a' way to educate, not the only way. It is a tool to use in the appropriate circumstance, not the only tool in the tool box. The Homework: Do some research on each of the concepts listed above to answer the following question: If you were to see a group working through the process of critical thinking (for example), what would they be saying and doing? Your answers are the skills, or behaviors, related to critical thinking - this is the 'skills list' for that concept. Then, when a group asks you to help them practice critical thinking, you program activities you know will involve critical thinking skills - the skills you can see and hear. Then, the group (and you) can evaluate if and when the skills are being used, how well they are working and what skills need more practice. What I've shared above is a (super) simple snap shot of, 'Purposeful Program Design' - something I've been teaching and training for the past 10 years. When we can learn to identify the skills sets (behaviors) of the concepts we aim to practice during team building (e.g., Leadership is another concept), we can (laser) focus in on the best activities to practice the skills. And, better meet the needs of our participants/groups.
Dive in. Build your skills lists and facilitate programs that will truly help groups learn and grow. Life skills education is a major focus of what we do. I challenge you to do the good work. And do it to the best of your ability!! (And, I thank you for it.)
Keep me posted. Chris Cavert, Ed.D.
Would you like a (super) quick email notification when new OTB content (blog post or podcast episode) is available? Fill out the form below and we'll let you know.
This is a conversation (video recorded with ZOOM) on Ground Rules and Group Contracts (e.g., Full Value Contract) between John Losey and me (Chris Cavert) recorded on Sept. 19th, 2019 (about 54 minutes). I wanted to get this into the OTB resources so it's easily searchable and accessible.
Below you can read some of the thoughts from the conversation. We would love to hear your thoughts on the topic. Please leave us a Comment.
What are ground rules or contracts? These are agreements on, "how we are going to BE together." In other words, what are the "rules" we're going to follow when we're together?
Many people (e.g., Corporate Adults) come into programs with expectations. Ground Rules and Contracts help us "align" expectations around how they treat each other and how they want to be treated so there is less misunderstanding. "What makes it fun for you when you're with a group of people?" This might be a way to approach rules or contract development. (Start from what your group may understand - fun, we hope, is understandable to most people.) Working with adults, John shares, "I want to have them take control over how they want to treat each other..." "If this is going to be the 'perfect' meeting, what's going to happen. What do you [the individuals] need from it, what does the group need from it?" (John leads with this idea through, "Setting goals and ground rules.") "What do we need from each other to best reach these goals?" With adult learners (research says), if the facilitator (leader) takes too much control, it limits the buy-in from participants. (How does this play out based on the time you have with a group?) When people feel like they've been heard, they're more likely to respond and interact in positive ways. Including 'people' in rules/contract development, whether group led or facilitator led, increases the likelihood of positive interactions. (A line of thinking: If this, then that...) You [the educator/facilitator as a 'role'] shouldn't totally eliminate yourself from the process, but it's good to be aware of your positional power, even your authoritarian or experiential power...and not abuse that and steal from the groups learning. Ground rules and contracts are not just about team building and group process, they are functional tools to get you where you want to go more effectively and efficiently.
We would love to hear your thoughts about Ground Rules and Contracts. Leave us a Comment.
Be well!! Chris & John
Would you like a (super) quick email notification when new OTB content (blog post or podcast episode) is available? Fill out the form below and we'll let you know.
The following was part of a recent email I received:
When you are writing up your activities [for the FUNdoing.com/blog], I would find it really helpful to have an added header that includes the activity's goals and/or objectives at the top of the description. Even though I was familiar with a number of the activities you described in the recent [FUNdoing] Friday emails [June 12th, the Group Juggle Variations & June 24th, the Mr. & Mrs. Wright Collection], I re-read the descriptions several times because the activities had twists and therefore I wasn't sure whether the typical goals/objectives had shifted. In gratitude, Pamela
This email inspired me to share my perspective about, what Pamela phrases, "the activity's goals and/or objectives..." (Thanks Pamela for the request and inspiration.)
The short version: It is very common for goals and objectives to be considered synonymous - this can happen when a goal is woven into an objective (totally fine when done with purpose, in my opinion). For clarity, I separate the two when training educators (e.g., team builders). In most cases, objectives originate from the educator (i.e., team builder, programmer, teacher, curriculum developer). Goals are created by participants - especially, during teambuilding programs for practicing the behaviors related to goal setting. If you are happy with, and already feel comfortable with these distinctions, you might not need to dive into the long version below. I have found (over the past 20 years), that clearing up grey areas for learners (e.g., synonymous terms), practice seems to be clearer. (How about this one: What's the distinction between processing, debriefing, reviewing, reflection? How do you explain this to new learners?)
Here's a long version - the way I teach the concepts of objectives and goals. My 'goal' here is to share my thinking in under 500 words in order for you to get the idea (expanding on the idea can be for another day).
Objectives In the context of teambuilding programs, there are two kinds of objectives:
Activity Objectives Literally, what is expected based on the activity description. For example: Hand off what's in your hand to the person on your right or left based on the language in the story. (Activity: Mr. & Mrs. Wright). Isn't this a goal Chris? Good question. After reading the 'Goals' section below you will see the distinction. Another quick example. Toss this object around the group as quickly as possible following these rules..... (Activity: Basic Group Juggle - video of the basics) Everyone participating in the activity is made aware of the objective through the directions (well, they are told, but awareness might be limited). Facilitated Objectives I describe these as possible learnings. When a client asks me to 'work on' certain concepts with a group or help them learn something (e.g., communication, trust, leadership, problem-solving, relationship-building, helping, having fun), I consider and program activities that, I believe, will help the group practice the concepts. (My considerations are based on my experiences with the activities I know.) My plan is to 'facilitate' towards the clients desired objectives - facilitated objectives. Participants in the program may or may not be fully aware of all the facilitated objectives I have planned. This depends on the context of the group. For example, based on program/learning objectives, it might be an advantage to share facilitated objectives with an adult group, but with a youth group it might not be necessary. Goals Goal-setting is the common term for an expectation one wants to meet (personally or as a group). We don't hear (or use) the term objective-setting. So, I like to purposefully separate the concept of goals from objectives. As noted in the context of team building, an objective is presented by the educator, goals are developed and pursued by the participant(s). In the most straight-forward way I can share this, there are two types of goals we tend to use during teambuilding. Product-oriented goals and process-oriented goals. A product-oriented goal is, most often, a result of work completed - often a number or time. A process-oriented goal is usually something someone or the group agrees to do during the work that leads to completing a task. In theMr. & Mrs. Write activity, a product-oriented goal might be for participant to have only one object in his/her hand at the end of the story. A process-oriented goal might be for everyone to have permission to call, "Stop" if there is a problem during the activity or if someone needs some help on their way to meeting the product-oriented goal. In the Basic Group Juggle activity, a product-oriented goal can be a certain time to achieve. The process-oriented goal might be to call out names before tossing an object in order to increase the level of catching success. In the midst of problem-solving towards the objective, the group develops goals to strive for - hence, practicing goal-setting behaviors in order to meet objectives.
Professional Development Opportunity
If you're up for a little professional development challenge, dive into the Mr. & Mrs. Wright Collection & Group Juggle Variations FUNdoing Blog posts and write up the Activity Objectives, Facilitated Objectives and a Goal for each one of the activities. If you would like, send them to me and I'll provide you with some feedback. I hope you found these distinctions useful. We'd love to hear your thinking on the subject. Leave us a Comment below. All the best, Chris Cavert, Ed.D.
Would you like a (super) quick email notification when new OTB content (blog post or podcast episode) is available? Fill out the form below and we'll let you know.
(This is a migration and updated post - it was first shared at the FUNdoing.com Blog. We are moving theoretical posts to OnTeamBuidling in an effort to organize content.)
An Alfie Kohn* blog post, Transformation by Degrees inspired me, a while back, to put together a few thoughts I'd been having about 'participant-centered' team building. Now, as team builders and experiential educators, most of us know how important it is to build a trusting community of learners by first getting to know our learners (as the teacher discovered in Mr. Kohn's first story). After we get started, how do we, as team builders, shift more (or all?) "control" of our learners' experience to them?
*Alfie Kohn is an educational thought leader advocating for less homework, less testing, and more "student-centered" educational practice. He is one of my heroes.
At this time, I have more questions than answers about how to make team building more "participant-centered." In this post my intention is to light the fire. Let's see what we can come up with together. To get the wheels turning, let me share a couple of recent stories and then share some thoughts from Kohn's post, Transformation by Degrees.
A recent change to my facilitation process has been to let go of the traditional "harness & helmet demo" and have my groups figure out how to get their PPE on appropriately. As a whole, the group is in charge of getting this task done correctly, meeting safety standards for proper harness and helmet fit. Now, I do give them some safety standards information: The waist belt must be above the waist. There should not be any twists in the webbing of the harness. And, the helmet must not expose the forehead or fall down over the eyes when climbing. (I am also wearing my PPE appropriately - meeting safety standards - as an example.) This participant-centered approach has become a nice addition to a group's "team" building experience. In most cases so far, it also helps when there is at least one person in the group that has climbed before (having worn a harness). My groups have ranged from 5th graders to adults. Yes, there does need to be fixes from time-to-time (that I point out), but the group is in charge. (NOTE: No one climbs without my approval/visual check - so, if I would say, "You're not ready yet," the participants helped each other reach passing criteria.) On another note, here is a recent story from a fellow facilitator that highlights a factor of "control" (or management) of time with a group. Working with a new group of 12 participants (for a half-day program), my friend wanted to go around the room for (what she requested) "quick" introductions. The first few people shared their name, their role at the company and a little bit about themselves (one-minute tops for each) - all was going as planned. Then, the trend changed. The stories from each participant got longer. The planned (on paper) 10-minute introduction activity turned into over 25 minutes of sharing. So, how do we adjust "control" and still get in everything we've planned? (The thinking: "If we let them be in charge, how will we get things done?") Do we impose a time limit on things so we can get to other tasks on the list? Are our programs about quantity or quality? Can there be both? How much planning with participants can take place before a program? Do we (and they) have time to do this? Again, more questions than answers right now, for me.
Here are some thoughts from Mr. Kohn (from Transformation by Degrees) about moving/ sharing control:
"...those of us who are trying to serve as change agents in education had better not count on teachers’ [team builders] waking up one morning prepared to adopt radically different practices. In fact, we would do well to have some examples ready for how they can get from here to there step by step." [Training team builders to be more participant-centered will take some time and role modeling.] "It is possible to edge slowly away from traditionalism with respect to just about any specific practice." [Try one participant-centered strategy at a time and maybe for just part of the program.] "To learn something about the students [participants] was to transcend (or at least create the conditions for transcending) traditional pedagogy [team builders are pretty good at this part]. To invite the students to talk with, and then introduce, one another was to transcend an ideology of individualism — learning as an activity for a roomful of separate selves. To ask (rather than dictate) what the interview questions should be was to transcend the default model of top-down teacher control. In each case, what was challenged had simply been taken for granted." "At each stage, one can move ahead only after confronting the unsettling truth that what looked like a destination turned out to be just a rest stop. There’s farther to go on this journey." [Find out from the group what else is important to do once you believe you have reached a destination with your group - you might think they are done, but do they think so?] “My job,” a teacher in Ohio once commented, “is to be as democratic as I can stand.” Had she invited me to append a friendly amendment to her declaration, it might have been, “… and my other job is to push myself to be able to stand more democracy next year than I could this year.” "Perhaps our motto should be: Change by degrees - but don't underdo it." Kohn
What are some of the changes you are making (or have made) to be more participant-centered in your programs? What are you doing as a team builder, that could be done by the group? We could put a participant-centered 'in-practice' document together and share it with the world. What do you say? Add your ideas in the Comments below.
Keep us posted! Chris Cavert, Ed.D.
Would you like a (super) quick email notification when new OTB content (blog post or podcast episode) is available? Fill out the form below and we'll let you know.
(This guest post is from Jim Hooper. Jim shares with us his use of the term 'Bridging' in order to better visualize the connecting between team building activities and real life. Thanks Jim!!)
As a Naturalist for the YMCA Greenkill Outdoor and Environment Education Center [one of the oldest Environmental Centers on the Northeast - and, it's not a typo], I began facilitating ropes course programs a little over 20 years ago. In subsequent years, I have moved into Summer Camp administration, serving as the Camp Manger at 4-H Camp Bristol Hills since 2005. One of the aspects of this position is the facilitation of groups on our ropes courses, and perhaps even more importantly, the training of 15-20 seasonal camp staff each summer as we prepare for some 300 youth to participate in ropes course programming.
"We are very deliberate in working with group leaders to understand what the group is hoping to accomplish from their time with us..."
With the growing popularity of recreation-based adventure programs, aerial parks and so on, I’ve had the opportunity to talk with school teachers, coaches, and other group leaders about what sets our program apart from those purely recreational programs (the local ski resort recently built a large aerial park a few miles from our camp, and have been pumping a lot of money into marketing those recreational opportunities). And while there are many differences between our program and theirs, one of the principle differences is our focus on group development as well as individual challenge. We are very deliberate in working with group leaders to understand what the group is hoping to accomplish from their time with us, and then we select challenges that we believe will shed light on those issues. We put a heavy emphasis on how the experience at camp, and on our ropes courses, relate back to the real lives of our participants. This is in line with the “What, So what, and Now what?” approach to adventure education. Sure, we had a great time swinging across an imaginary lava pit and landing in tiny hula hoops, but realistically, how does that help us when we go back to school, the office, the field, etc. It’s not like we will ever need to swing from cubicle to cubicle on a rope!!
"I truly believe that effective processing can come at any time throughout the experience, before, during and after."
Typically, skilled facilitators will employ reflective techniques throughout a program to help participants see the correlations between the program and the tasks that a group is expected to perform when they go back to the “real world." I often find that young seasonal staff, ranging from 17-21 years of age, are frequently intimidated by this phase of the program, and will shorten the processing phase in favor of cramming one more activity in before lunch. This is an area that I have tried to focus on during our staff trainings, and I have found it really helpful to talk about this process not as “processing” or “debriefing” or even “reflection”, but as “bridging”. Personally, I find that the former choices often lead to groans, moans, or general “oh man, here we go again” response. Additionally, I have found that these terms imply that processing is something that only happens after an experience comes to a close, and I truly believe that effective processing can come at any time throughout the experience, before, during and after.
"There is a very visual element to the term bridging, and particularly with the young staff that I work with, the visual aspect appeals to the concrete thinking perspective."
I far as I can remember, I first ran into the term of “bridging” in “Processing the Experience: Strategies to Enhance and Generalize Learning” (2nd. ed.) by John Luckner and Reldan S. Nadler (though I don’t have a copy of it anymore to verify that). I really connect with the term on a few different levels. First, I believe that staff see the activities we facilitate in our programs as one world, separate from real life, and that the processing phase is the way that we connect, or bridge, those two worlds. There is a very visual element to the term bridging, and particularly with the young staff that I work with, the visual aspect appeals to the concrete thinking perspective. Additionally, I find that bridging lends to a more proactive approach to the process. Just like when we are going to build a bridge, we need to prepare and gather resources before we begin building. We also need to be able to interrupt construction if we see something that demands immediate intervention. And of course, once the bridge is built, we need to travel across the bridge, carrying the experiences from one world to the other. I have found that staff are able to relate well to this approach. It gives them the confidence to think about processing in a broader perspective, rather than just “something we have to do at the end of every activity." We also spend a significant time during our training, talking about processing fatigue; the idea that not every single activity needs to be processed, and that it’s imperative to vary your bridging techniques so that participants don’t begin to dread the time immediately following an activity.
We would love to know about your thoughts on Bridging. Leave a Comment below.
All the best, Jim & Chris
Would you like a (super) quick email notification when new OTB content (blog post or podcast episode) is available? Fill out the form below and we'll let you know.
|
OnTeamBuilding is a forum for like-minded people to share ideas and experiences related to team building. FREE Team Building
Activity Resources 
OTB FacilitatorDr. Chris Cavert is an educator, author and trainer. His passion is helping team builders learn and grow. Archives
September 2023
|
||
RSS Feed
Proudly powered by Weebly