Where words won’t go:the use of graduatedscenariosto facilitate thelearning of complex concepts

Jenny Moon, The Centre for Excellence in Media Practice, BournemouthUniversity

Introduction

This paper starts with an account of the development of a form of exercise (graduated scenario technique) to facilitate the development of understanding of one concept that is difficult to explain to students (and their teachers). That is reflective learning. From wide use and the apparent value of the work on reflective learning , the method was applied to another complex concept – that of critical thinking. The paper then goes on to explore why this method seems to be helpful to teachers and learners and furthermore I explore the potential uses of the graduated scenario technique for other areas of higher education learning and professional development in which it difficult to explain a particular concept because of its complexity – in other words, situations in which ‘words won’t go’.

(In the text I use the terms ‘students’ and ‘learners’ synonymously).

In the late 1990’s I wrote a book and ranworkshops on reflective learning but at the time of publication, Ihad a sense of dissatisfaction. I felt that there was more to do on the topic of reflective learning. Teachers, who were encouraging use of reflective learning,typically described two difficulties which I seemed not to be addressing. The first was how they should explain to learners what they (as learners) should do in order to write reflectively. Secondlythey were saying that when they get some reflective writing from their students, the quality of the writing tended to be superficial. It lacked depth and this seemed to limit the quality of learning that could result from the reflection. Knowing the theoretical background to reflective learningfor these students, was simply not enough.

Reflective learning – or the usual represented form of reflective writing –is a concept that cannot easily be described in words by, for example, one person tells another how to do it, as in a teaching situation. Words won’t easily go there. Reflective writing could be shown by example or demonstration, particularly if well and poorly executed samples were included, though proper use of examples seemed rarely to be used. The provision of the opportunity for comparison in quality in an exampleseemed to be important. What I saw matched another observation. Teachers would say that they could recognise good or poor reflective writing when they saw it, even though they could not explain what it is or how to do it.

This problem was in my mind as I started to research in preparation for a book on learning journals (1999) and a second book on reflective learning (2004). In particular the development of a concept of depth in reflective learning seemed to be important. A few theorists had introduced the idea of depth in reflection (eg Van Manen, 1977; Mezirow. 1981; Wedman and Martin, 1986, Kember, Leung, Jones, Loke, McKay, Harrison, Webb, Wong and Yeung, 2000), and my thinking was influenced also by those who have worked on epistemological development (eg Perry, 1970, Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger and Tarule, 1986; Baxter Magolda, 1992, King and Kitchener, 1994)). In particular Hatton and Smith’s work (1995) was helpful because they had developed a framework in which depth was represented. However, what Hatton and Smith had developed was intended as an assessment tool that was for use by teachers, and the language was not comprehensible for most students. I modified their work for direct use by some students with whom I was working. The were needing to reflect on their work experience situations – and the modified form of Hatton and Smith’s work seemed to be helpful and the reflective writing improved. The previous reflection had been very superficial(Watton, Collings and Moon, 2004).

The development of graduated scenarios for reflective learning

Around that time, the Institute for Learning and Teaching (ILT) required aspiring members to write reflectively on their teaching experiences. I was asked to run a workshop for some staff and so I came directly up against the problem of telling teachers how to reflect. I decided to try to demonstrate good practice in reflective writing on my understanding of depth. I wrote adescriptive short story about an event (in around a third of an A4 page) and then wrote it three more times at increasing depth (Moon 2004). So there were four accounts of the same event written at progressively deepening levels of reflection. In this way the exercise ‘The Park’ was developed (Appendix 1). Alongside the development of thesegraduated scenarios, I identified the aspects of the accounts that changed as the reflective nature of the accounts deepened (Appendix 2), and from this I developed ‘TheGeneric Framework for Reflective Writing’ (Appendix 3). This framework provides descriptions of reflective learning at four depths that are labelled ‘Descriptive writing; Description with some reflection; Reflective writing 1 and Reflective writing 2. It was based on a broad reading of the literature on reflection and depth.

I ran the workshop and it seemed to go well. After a few experiments with modifications to the exercise, I worked out a manner of managing it that has been the basis of its use with several thousands of teaching staff and student participants in workshops over the last four years in a number of countries.

Briefly the method is the following. Learners are each given a handout with the four scenarios on them. They are divided into small groups. They are then asked – all at the same time - to read the first account, thinking about how reflective it is and what makes it reflective or not. When most have finished reading the account, within their groups, learners are asked to discuss how reflective it is. After a few minutes or when the discussion has died down (there is not much reflection in the first account), I ask them to stop talking and to read the next account. I then ask them to discuss it. The same procedure occurs for the last two accounts. When participants have discussed the fourth account sufficiently, I ask the groups to identify what it is that changes between the four accounts in order to make the fourth account more deeply reflective than the first. I point out that change in depth of reflection is represented in the changes of a number of features. I call these ‘strands’ – but I also say that they may not be evident in all of the accounts. For example, it is only in the last two accounts that the subjectof the scenario draws on the views of others to aid her reflection. Participants will have observed this. Desk surface space permitting, I then give out large sheets of paper and markers and ask groups to depict the strands of change in depth of aspects of reflection across the accounts. I ask them to avoid simple description of each account as a separate entity. Most often they use sort of graph(economists have proved excellent at this activity!). Ultimately I am interested in the identity of the strands – in other words the features of increasing depth in reflective writing – or what it is that makes reflective writing different from description and that makes deep reflective writing better than description.

In my experience, from running this exercise more learning arises from the exercise if this stage is allowed to run until the depictions are completed (some hustling is usually needed). This might take 15 minutes. I then ask groups, in turn, to name one aspect of the scenarios that has changed over the accounts. I go on round until most of the ideas have been collected. I then show,on a PowerPoint slide or point out in the handout, a list of the changes(Appendix 2). I have usually managed to draw out from the groups most of what is in the list. Then I relate this to the Generic Framework for Reflective Writing (Appendix 3) and indicate that it is for long term guidance in reflective writing. If I am working with teachers, I indicate that it can be used also for the development of assessment criteria for the process of reflective writing.

I suggest that exercise is run at least twicewith any group of students – once to get them started with reflection, and at a later stage (e.g. after a couple of months of practice in reflective writing), in order to enhance their understanding of deeper reflection. I have developed a number of similar exercises on reflective learning (in books 2004, 2006 – but also available for free download at Moon, 2007). It does not matter if the same or different exercises are used for the two occasions. What does seem to be an important, however, is to avoid scenarios that are closely related to the discipline of the learners- as learners can tend to get caught up in discussions of the subject matter and ignore the reflective processes. In terms of the lengths of the scenarios, it seems to be important to keep them short. Where the individual scenarios spread over more than a page, there is a tendency for boredom and distraction to occur. Short pieces (e.g. half to three quarters of a side of A4) facilitate the observation of the important features of the exercise.

The development of the graduated scenarios approach in work on critical thinking

In the last two years, I have been writing a book on critical thinking (Moon, 2008). I see critical thinking as a concept that is at the heart of higher education, but yet is as elusive and as difficult to explain to learners as reflective learning. It is another concept ‘where words won’t go’. I wrote the theory chapters of the book and then planned to derive the basis for the pedagogy from this. I had found in the theory that a concept of depth seemed helpful to the understanding of critical thinking as much as it is in reflective learning. It seemed to enable me to describe the development of the process of critical thinking in the individual. From the pedagogical point of view this is important. Most literature on critical thinking seems to assume that is ‘not there’ one moment and then is suddenly ‘there’ – as an all or nothing concept.

I wondered if some from of graduated scenario method might work also for at least some areas of critical thinking, given the similar difficulties that students and their teachers have in conceptualising it. I drew up some scenario materials and on the basis of my, by then, extensive reading of the literature on critical thinking, drew up an initial draft of a Framework for Critical Thinking and ran the draft exercise at a workshop. It seemed to be helpful in providing a more tangible means of developing understanding of what critical thinking is and how to improve it. I refined the first set of materials.

The idea of critical thinking is more complexthan reflective learning because there are different activities to which critical thinking is applied (Moon, 2008). The first exercise I had developed for critical thinking concerned critical appraisal of the self – and it was quite similar to reflective learning. Another exercise that I developed concerned the thinking about a critical incident, and the third concerned the consideration of an argument that was constructed by another person. The same Framework applies to all the activities. The graduated scenario exercises on critical thinking have now become a regular part of my workshops on critical thinking and seem to be helpful and well received. The materials are available in Moon, 2007 and are in the Resources section of Moon, 2008. There is no restriction on copying, using or modifying.

Exploration of possible further applications of graduated scenarios

The graduated scenario method of working with staff and students in order to facilitate the learning around these constructed concepts of reflective learning and critical thinking seemed to work. I have begun therefore, to consider the potential for furtherapplications in pedagogy. In connection with some work in Canada with medical educators and (separately) a group at University of Ottawa who work in the education of sport coaches, I re-read Wertner and Trudel (2006). Wertner and Trudel have further developed ideas in Moon (2004) for use in the education of (top) sport coaches. Their paper triggered the thought that graduated scenarios might have wider applications in professional development wherein learners need to acquire concepts of practice that are difficult to describe – in the same way as it is difficult to describe reflective practice and critical thinking.

To develop this further thinking, I considered what it is that is common to reflective learning and critical thinking that makes the graduated scenarios a useful method. The following list emerged.

  • Both reflective learning and critical thinking are constructed terms to describe pedagogically and professionally valued processes.
  • In both of these cases it is the process that is illustrated by the scenario. It is not what is actually happening in the story, but the manner in which the story is written. However, the same method would work if it were to be the content of the scenarios that was the focus. In that case, the scenario would often be in the form of a case study. For example, the scenario might be a visit by a social worker to the home of a client to assess a situation. The first scenario might be a superficial inquiry from the viewpoint of the social worker, and the last scenario might illustrate a well focused and effective interaction that is satisfactory for both client and social worker.
  • Reflective learning and critical thinking are complex processes and for neitheris there an agreed definition, but there is plenty of vague understanding about their characteristics. In other words, there is a general set of ideas that identifies, for example reflective learning or that allows a teacher to say ‘I can recognised good reflective learning when I see it even though I cannot tell you what it is’. In other words, it is difficult to discuss these terms in the abstract and there is consequent difficulty in telling learners how to shift from the descriptive mode to deeper reflective writing or critical thinking.
  • The processing of scenarios in the exercises way forces learners to pay attention to making critical discriminations in the processes that they view. There is benefit from the discussion of this in a group.
  • The involvement of groupwork in the form of the exercises ensure that multiple perspectives are considered – a feature, itself, of deep functioning in more sophisticated learning.
  • In both reflective learning and critical thinking, there is a progression in the complexity and richness of the appropriate processing that is represented by increasing depth in the graduated scenarios. I was able to describe this progression in the written frameworks by working from theoretical writing (though it could be from agreed interpretations of good practice).
  • The presentation of examples of appropriate processing in the graduated scenarios seems to be helpful to learners.
  • The examples provide comparisons of unsophisticated processing (that results in descriptive writing) and sophisticated and deep processing – and this also seems helpful to learners.

At the heart of the graduated scenario is the requirement on the students, to make judgements about and to evaluate increasingly complex material. They cannot just read it, but have to commit themselves (Moon, 2008a in press). For the exercise to workthere does need to be a general agreement about what best or expert practice ‘looks like’ and the progression to it from descriptive, poor or novice practice. It needs to be possible to develop the progression into a set of guidelines or a framework (as illustrated in Appendix 3).

Some other situations for the use of graduated scenarios

This section is a collection of ideas that seem to meet the conditions in the last paragraph of the section above. Some of the uses for graduated scenarios are generic, as are those for reflective learning and critical thinking, but most are likely to be within disciplines, and while I might be able to make broad suggestions of the kinds of ways in which they might be used outside my own disciplines, I cannot develop them or the frameworks that may accompany them. The ideas below are designed to act as a stimulus for others to do the thinking! They are not in any particular order and there are overlaps:

  • Clinical reasoning processes in health and medical subjects.

Clinical reasoning is the process of making appropriate decisions in the context of work with patients and clients in the health sector. It takes into account the selection of sources of evidence, reasoning and making appropriate judgements of that evidence. The scenarios are likely to illustrate progressively improving qualities and sophistication of reasoning.

  • Decision-making and the making of other professional judgements in business and other situations

This is the process of making decisions that have drawn on appropriate information and evidence, and which are based on good reasoning.

  • The management of personal interactions in many professional situations

Examples here are in counselling and mentoring situations; human resource management situations, leadership issues, practices of telling bad news management situations, sport coaching or other professional educational processes decision making at meetings etc. In these cases, the scenarios may look like critical incidents with different considerations and actions being illustrated as the situation is handled progressively more efficiently. It is the management of the situation that changes.

  • Reasoning and judgement practices in law and legal studies.
  • The management of particular interventions in medicine, health, psychotherapy, social work and similar professions.
  • The processes of evaluation that are involved in critique in the arts

Examples could occur here in art and design subjects, in architecture, in judgement of written work, or any format that represents responses to a task. Here it would be the quality of the evaluative process that would be exemplified in the progression of the scenarios.

  • Evaluation of professional activities in professional education (e.g. the effectiveness of crits in teaching).

It is the quality of the evaluation of the activity that is the focus of change in the scenarios here.

  • Personal and professional development

This could include, for example, the quality of personal appraisal of skills, leadership skills performance, teaching or clinical activities, performance within sport and so on. Again it is the quality of the evaluation that will change across the scenarios.