The randomised ‘Journey’ through the learning workshop is illustrated by the flowchart shown in Figure 6.1.
Figure 6.1 – Flowchart showing route through learning workshop
INFO 1 - 3 SCENARIO 5 DILEMMA 6 ACTIVTY 8 ANSWER 7 REVIEW 9 ACTIVTY 11 ANSWER 10 DILEMMA 17 ACTIVTY 15 ACTIVTY 12 ACTIVTY 20 DILEMMA 13 DILEMMA INFO INFO INFO 21 ANSWER 19 ANSWER 18 ANSWER 16 ANSWER 14 ANSWER 22 REVIEW & END YES YES 4 ACTIVTY START NO NO DECISION DECISION INFO
The flowchart illustrates how participants progress through the workshop undertaking activities and making decisions the outcomes of which determine their route to the next activity or dilemma. The step-by-step approach through the workshop and critical reflection is described in the sections below.
(i)
The workshop commences with an outline of the learning objectives (shown within Appendix D). This is followed by a description of the format of the exercise, roles of participants and rules. A copy of the workbook is provided to each participant. Pairs were chosen as the collaborative group size. Each pair is allocated a deposit of 500 points in the form of reward tokens and informed of the potential prizes at completion. The final prizes were deliberately tangible to provide a gameplay incentive as advocated by Sutter (2010) and others.
Critical reflection - It was noted that most participants scanned through the workbook on receipt to see ‘what is coming’. However the randomisation of the sheets was found to be effective in preventing participants progressing directly to the end of the exercise. The provision of reward tokens immediately was found to establish a game-based environment, encouraging the competition advocated by Ebner and Holzinger (2007) and others, with
participants keen to engage in the learning. Allocation of participants to their respective pairs was carried out by the facilitator, this was to create realism and avoid participants working with friends as noted by Roberts (1999). There were no objections raised to this approach and repositioning within the room further enhanced the learning environment (McKeon, 1995 and others).
(ii)
Workbook Sheets 1-3 describe the work-based project scenario, the players and the client. The scenario is designed to provide an authentic work situation for new entrant surveyors taking on their first role as a project surveyor, as advocated by the realism and relevance theme of the learning model.
Critical reflection – Most participants recognised and related to the type of project scenario described in worksheets 1 to 3, which was a large office/warehouse development. However, more photographs and a video or three-dimensional walk-through of the site would further enhance realism. For application of the model it would be important to validate in advance that the scenario project type selected was familiar to participants to ensure realism.
1 - 3 SCENARIO
(iii)
Workbook Sheet 4 provides an activity addressing RICS Professional and Ethical Standards. Participants are required to analyse the scenario and discuss possible responses regarding applicability of the standards. The activity provided the first opportunity for exploration as advocated by De Jong (2006) and others.
Critical reflection – This initial activity worked well and introduced participants to the RICS Professional and Ethical Standards. However, it was found several participants wanted to discuss the standards with the facilitator. This was controlled by capturing the points to a flip-chart for discussion at the review point. An important learning point was that the facilitator can quickly become overly involved in discussion and disrupt the game flow, a warning highlighted by Meier (2000) in terms of desirable extent of facilitator involvement.
(iv)
At this point additional data on professional and ethical standards is provided in the form of an Information Sheet. Use of information sheets was aimed at participants with a reading style learning
6 ACTIVTY
preference advocated in the VARK learning style model (Fleming and Baume, 2006).
Critical reflection - It was observed that some participants required support and reassurance from the facilitator in the form of clarity of understanding. This was dealt with by one-to-one discussion with individual participants to avoid disruption of the group. The requirement for facilitator support is an element noted within the learning model as important to establish and maintain engagement in the learning process.
(v)
Workbook Sheet 5 provides the first ethical issue or dilemma, in this instance concerning the poor performance of the client’s planning advisor. Participants are required to make a decision and response i.e. whether to act or not, this can be correct (YES) or incorrect (No). The decision selected then determines the route to the next workbook sheet.
Critical reflection – For this dilemma participants are required to apply higher-order thinking and metacognition to solve a problem which is complex/uncertain and provides an opportunity for option exploration advocated by De Jong (2006) and others. It was found
5
the facilitator’s role is important at this point to ensure participants do make a decision and move-on with the game. Participants were not familiar with this type of decision-making workshop game, which added to the excitement and enthusiasm within the learning environment and ultimately to enjoyment and engagement in the learning.
(vi)
Workbook Sheet 8 provides confirmation of the correct answer and reinforces the learning. Participants making the correct decision are awarded 100 reward tokens that they collect from the facilitator. From this point participants move to Worksheet 10 which presents the next issue and dilemma.
Critical reflection – It was observed that this contributed positively to an active and competitive environment with participants keen to collect their tokens. Distribution of the tokens was carried out publically, deliberately encouraging the competition advocated by Burguillo (2010) and others. It also increased the bonding and cohesiveness of the pairs in their learning.
8 ANSWER
(vii)
Workshop pairs that made an incorrect decision are routed to Workbook Sheet 11. This provides guidance on the correct answer and therefore supports learning. At this point those making an incorrect decision were requested to surrender 100 reward tokens to the facilitator. From this point participants move to Worksheet 11 which provides the next issue and dilemma.
Critical reflection - It was found this required careful facilitation to avoid demotivation and additional support was provided through direct interaction and discussion with individual pairs. The facilitator plays an important role here in the operation of the model to ensure participants remain engaged.
(viii)
The process of activities, dilemmas and decisions is repeated through to Workbook Sheet 7 which provides a review point. The objective of the review point is to reinforce reflective learning and provide support to participants. A further game element is introduced in the form of a quiz based on ten “decision-making scenarios”. This provided an opportunity to earn further reward
11 ANSWER
7 REVIEW
points and a league table was established to enhance the element of competition.
Critical reflection - It was found that this required careful management as some participants could move significantly into the lead with a series of correct answers. Those with lower scores becoming anxious and concerned about their ability to catch-up in the remainder of the workshop; a point noted by Jefferies (2005) with regard to competition in simulation theory. In practice this was addressed by ‘skilful’ facilitation using such measures as ensuring the balancing of respondents permitted to answer quiz questions.
(ix) Following the review point the learning workshop continues with further activities and dilemmas of increasing complexity and subjectivity, a feature of higher-order activity advocated by Robinson (2011). For example, Workbook Sheet 20 requires participants to consider the dilemma of errors and professional liability. The outcome of which could have profound effect on professional indemnity liabilities. The learning workshop concludes with a final review point and feedback session primarily aimed at summarising and reinforcing learning. Reward points are totalled, ‘winners’ declared on the league table and prizes awarded.
Critical reflection - At this point it was observed that energy within the workshop was very high with participants commenting on the