Strongly Worded

What You Hear Me Saying

So I'm taking a 30-hour, intensive mediation class. Said class is taught at the Very Prestigious School at which I work. Given that VPS' culture is the antithesis of touchy-feely, I expected it to be a cut-and-dry, almost technical experience. Prior to launching my VPS career, I worked for many years in the nonprofit sector, and before that attended a liberal arts college. Thus, I am intimately familiar with Interactive Training Techniques, Experiential Learning, and the notion that trainers should capitalize on the Wisdom of the Students. Readers, I am tired of this. I crave a training where I show up, the trainers impart the content, I practice the skills, get feedback, and then everyone goes home.

As soon as I saw the flip charts and markers, as soon as I saw the "Parking Lot" (large sheet of paper on which to write "burning questions" that can't be addressed In The Moment), I experienced a sinking feeling of familiar dismay. When we were Split Into Groups, and asked to Collaboratively Generate Our Definition of Consensus, I knew I was in for it.

I studied education in college and so I understand that grappling with content (as opposed to being spoon-fed) is an effective teaching strategy. But I take issue with needless grappling. A definition of consensus exists. The instructors know it. So what's the value of spending almost an hour working in groups to come up with "our" definition? The trainees, who were mostly VPS grad students, rose to this task and proceded to split hairs and debate whether the word "general" should or should not remain in the definition that one (goody-two shoes, ubernerdy) guy later posted on Wikipedia: "a general agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision making and follow-up action."

Because we just couldn't get by without a dash of kinesthetic learning, at one point a facilitator stood on a chair and said "I am Conflict. Please position yourself physically in a way that corresponds to your relationship with me" (i.e.: hide under the table, leave the room, etc.). Then we spent 15 minutes moving and then debriefing. Then we brainstormed words we associate with conflict. When almost all the words were negative, the instructor prodded and asked fishing, leading questions in order to elicit words that reflect the rewards of conflict and its resolution: "opportunity," "growth" and "satisfaction." Wouldn't it be better and quicker (and more genuine) to say: "Most of us perceive conflict as a negative thing, but it actually can provide opportunities to strengthen relationships. Let's talk about some of those situations." Despite their statements to the contrary, the instructors clearly have a Right Answer in mind. Why not just share the wisdom and move on?

The other maddening aspect of the this training? The instructors' constant need to make us feel "heard"... by rephrasing each students' contributions and then circling back to the student to affirm that they've "captured" his or her meaning: "I think I heard you say that you think the definition of 'self-determination' resonates with you because of its close connection with initiative and independent thought." The student is often so confused by the restatement that (s)he forgets what her original intent actually was, and then says something else that is then restated.

I was so excited to take the class and have gotten great value from it; I am not quite halfway through. But what I hear myself saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that I'm frustrated with the ultra inclusive and responsive teaching methodology and would love it if we just got to the point.

Posted by Dori at 2:47 PM