This really stretches the definition of a ‘tip’ and it’s only the second one … But never mind, maybe someone will find it useful. I use this method every week and can’t really remember how I managed without it.
So the basic idea is you have four groups, each representing a different organisation, all of which have some kind of problem that needs solving. Each group needs between 3 and 6 students; the groups don’t have to be exactly equal.
Within each group, you nominate or self-select between 2 and 4 people to be consultants. The remaining group members automatically become managers. Throughout the activities, managers always stay in their home group while consultants travel to other groups.
Over the course of the next 2 – 3 hours, students are confronted with repeated high-level genuine communication scenarios requiring them to analyse, explain and persuade.
Phase 1: Analysis
Initially, materials are distributed and each group learns its individual identity. This should be some kind of organisation with some kind of problem(s). Students can use SWOT/Porter/PESTEL/rich picturing/any other analysis to explore their situation, though at this stage they are not looking for solutions – that comes later. The emphasis here is on the managers being able to explain the issues, as this is what happens in stage 2. Depending on the learner level/time constraints/expectations the materials can be brief or highly complex.
Phase 2: Briefing
This is where it gets slightly complicated; a visualisation of the required classroom movement is useful here. Basically, each group needs to send consultants to 2 other groups in such a manner that each group now contains the original managers plus consultants from 2 other groups. Depending on the overall group size, the consultants will be travelling alone or in pairs, it doesn’t matter. The managers now have to explain their group’s organisational identity and problem to the visiting consultants. The more clarity, depth and detail they bring to this the better. Depending on the nature of the organisation + problem, it may also be appropriate for the managers to give the consultants materials to take away, or even to have prepared their own materials detailing the problem(s).
Phase 3: Development
The idea is that the consultants now return to their home groups and, together with the managers (who for this period forget their original role and help the consultants), develop some kind of solution to the problem/s they have been hearing about. The first challenge is for the consultants to relate what they have discovered (don’t forget that the managers are entirely out of the loop on this, having just been explaining an entirely different problem to entirely different consultants). And lest we forget: each group has two solutions to develop, as their two consultants visited two different respective groups. The groups would now normally split in two, with managers joining consultants to work on the potential solutions.
Phase 4: Pitch
It’s action time again as the consultants head back out on the road to pitch their solutions to the organisations. Theoretically one could now swap roles so that those students who were previously managers now become consultants and get to travel, but in practice I prefer to keep the roles static so that the students who received the briefing are the same students who make the pitch. Now comes the climax of the activity: each group contains two consultants who are making two different pitches to the organisation against each other, having no idea what the other consultants may have created. This creates genuine tension as one consultant has to listen to the other’s pitch and then try to better it. The natural and unforced competitive element is undeniable. Ideally the consultants have also produced some written materials which they can leave with the managers.
Phase 5: Debrief
Ok, back to the home groups for the debrief. This time it is the managers doing the explaining as they outline the two pitches they have just heard to the returning group members. Some kind of scoring system can be developed (with basic criteria referencing if possible) and the whole team should then evaluate the competing solutions and allocate points. Finally, each group can give feedback to the whole group level explaining their scoring while the teacher notes down the overall points and awarding the winning team with a prize (the team whose consultants collectively accrued the most points).
I’m not sure how this reads – maybe it sounds like duh, that’s group work, big deal. Maybe I’m not explaining it clearly, maybe the communicative implications of the various group constellations aren’t immediately obvious. But I’m telling you: it works, and it is almost entirely self-organising. As a teacher you’re at liberty to walk around offering intervention and differentiating without having to dash to the front and engage in teacher talk. Keep each section timed tightly and you’ll have some of the most relaxed lessons ever.
www.stephen-mortimer.com 