My underlying intention in using scenarios derived from authentic workplace situations was to create and facilitate shared professional dialogues based on mutual trust about dilemmas and areas of complexity within schools. The approach was inclusive and enabled all participants to be engaged in an active way. This allowed all workshop participants to reflect on their understandings without being concerned that judgements or assessments about their decision-making responses were being made by other participants. For these reasons, I set about creating scenarios with a range of possible developments that could act as a catalyst for a shared professional discourse among participants in areas of high
professional need and complexity.
Adult learning principles have been a guide in designing this pedagogy. The process of ‘learning to think for oneself’ is dependent on ‘becoming critically reflective of
assumptions and participating in discourse to validate beliefs, intentions, values and feelings’ (Mezirow, 1998, p. 197). A key aspect of this process was metacognition. I have used the term metacognition to convey the processes by which a learner develops an understanding of their own learning, critical thinking and self-reflection. In the
presentation and facilitation of the scenarios, harder, more complex and uncomfortable conversations were used at times to challenge the comfort zones of all learners once a relationship of trust had been built. These harder conversations often entailed more detailed critical reflection, and ensured greater clarity by forcing all the learners to articulate their beliefs, values and understandings, as a part of the sharing of the knowledge with other learners. Integral to this process was the development of critical thinking and problem-solving skills by the learners as they listened, interacted, reflected and shared.
The drivers of the pedagogical framework were reflection, participation in a group discourse, the sharing of knowledge and critical enquiry. The emphasis was not placed on every participant to reach the same conclusion as the development of self -reflection was a key component of the learning which was undertaken. The initial context of a scenario could be the nature of support and guidance for a new staff member who does not wish to be part of a school-based induction program or a staff member who is late to work. After the initial context was explored, a range of developments or tangents were then thrown into the evolving situation that related to other issues. What then became clear to the participants as the scenario unfolded was the complexity and multilayered nature of the issues under consideration.
The mode of presentation was through a PowerPoint presentation of which individual copies were not made available to participants. This was to prevent participants from reading ahead34, understanding the course of events and prejudging outcomes. The frames were sequenced and projected onto a screen or wall. The process was dependent on the flow of ideas and comments from the participants. I usually shared a brainstorming session as the facilitator with the workshop participants and had an initial set of ideas put on a whiteboard for everyone to see and reference when needed. At the conclusion of the
workshop, it was often interesting to see how far the dialogue and peer learning had moved from the initial responses that were gathered in the first session. For this reason, the
workshops I facilitated which used the same scenario can be very different in approach, as the participants for each workshop varied and their shared responses, listening and
judgements framed the reflective conversations.
As a facilitator, I was primarily interested in exploring the nuances and tensions that arose in a complex case of decision making. My intention was not to promote a fixed narrative which had a predetermined destination. This was why I have responded positively to the use of ‘messy’ by researchers who are writing in the field of ethical decision making (Cranston, 2008; Fauske, 2000; Murphy, 2007). It was the ‘messy’ aspects that often explained the tension or best captured the complexity of the decision making where there was not a simple yes or no response that could be made. As a facilitator of the professional learning, the focus needed to be on exploring the ‘shades’ of the ethical issues as they developed and interacted with each other. For this reason, I concurred strongly with Maisy’s assessment from an interview that ‘ethics is all about shades of grey’ (Transcript, WS750051, p. 6).
34 Maisy commented on this as ‘flicking ahead’ to read the story in the context of participants ‘innate interest
The role of the facilitator was of central importance in the scenarios I created. The facilitator’s role was to generate questions and to provide continuous feedback to the responses from participants. The facilitator was also able to control the pace of the discussion and at times to speed up or slow down the conversations between participants as they shared responses. It was the facilitator’s role to work closely with the participants to elicit responses and to test hypotheses and approaches that were being formed by participants. I deliberately adopted the role of the facilitator in the professional practice workshops I convened. The scenarios for the toolkit were designed in such a way that, when used in a school, they could be employed by different staff adopting the role of a facilitator as part of a professional learning session.
A useful understanding of facilitation and the role of the facilitator is provided by Condliffe who defines a facilitator as a person who ‘enables groups and organisations to work more effectively’ (2008, p. 328). Condliffe acknowledges that an independent facilitator has the ability to challenge the ‘underlying beliefs and assumptions’ of a group if open and inclusive processes are established. Condliffe further advocates that the processes that are employed need to be flexible and cautions that ‘applying too rigid a process to a situation will often be counter-productive’ (2008, p. 328). The pedagogical framework I employed in facilitating workplace scenarios strongly endorsed this central aim which was to ‘harness a group’s intellectual potential, goodwill and energy’
(Condliffe, 2008, p. 328).