Educational researchers have well documented the limitations of lectures (see "20 Terrible Reasons for Lecturing, Gibbs, 1981 for one example). Many alternatives are available, including problem-based learning, experiential learning, action research, group discussion, learning contracts, simulation games, role-play simulations, and reflection-in-practice. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate how one of these alternatives can be effective in a particular situation. I hope to illustrate that it is not difficult to move beyond the lecturing mode of delivery. I also put the case that we will need to look to some (perhaps all) of the above methods if we are to produce the type of graduates industry, government and our own institutions are demanding.
The main use of lectures in Professional education is for the transmission of knowledge. However, transmission of knowledge is not the only purpose of higher education. The Higher Education Council define the desirable characteristics of a graduate as being a mix of:
Including qualities such as critical thinking, intellectual curiosity, problem solving, logical and independent thought, effective communication and related skills in identifying, accessing and managing information; personal attributes such as intellectual rigour, creativity and imagination; and values such as ethical practice, integrity and tolerance;
To provide the graduate with knowledge of an area and its theoretical base and to act as a vehicle for refinement of generic skills;
Skills which graduates can apply immediately to their employment, both occupation specific and general, such as the ability to work with minimum supervision and to apply learning to practical situations. (Higher Education Council, 1992)
A survey of business and higher education leaders found that graduates were falling well short in the area of generic skills, attributes and values (B/HEd Round Table, 1991). This is not surprising when we reflect on the dominance of lectures and examinations in professional education. Teach & Govahi (1993) surveyed managers five years after graduating from business school, asking which teaching methods had contributed to the skills they used as managers. The teaching methods were lectures, case-based, management games, and role-plays. The management skills were a pre-defined list of 41 items drawn from the works of Mintzeberg and others. Only one skill (reflective listening) rated as being best developed through lecture based subjects.
We have to address generic skills, attributes and values in our courses. Clearly, we will need to move away from lectures to do so.
It is therefore appropriate that one of the generic skills we aim to develop in our graduates is skill in negotiation and conflict management.
Kolb's model of Experiential Learning (Kolb, 1984) provides the educational validity of this approach. The Teach & Govahi (1993) survey found that role-plays were the most effective method of developing conflict resolution skills. Van Ments (1983) identifies negotiations as one of the specific areas in which role-play is most effective. A model of a negotiations course using role-plays is available in Rowe (1987). Petranek et al. (1992) provides further advice on how to best use role-plays in higher education.
With all of this available advice and guidance, it seems wise to try the use of role-plays in Building education.
An eight week module on negotiations ran within a subject of the B.Build Degree during second semester 1995. The class included 36 students in their 3rd and 4th years. Two texts were set: "Getting to Yes" (Fischer, Ury & Patton, 1991) and "Conflict Management" (Condliffe, 1991). The two texts complemented one another. "Getting to Yes" is a hands-on practical guide, while "Conflict Management" provides the theories behind negotiation. There were no lectures in the eight class sessions devoted to negotiations. Each week consisted of a role-play exercise of increasingly complex nature; from two-party single issue negotiations and conflicts, to two-party multi-issue negotiations and conflicts, and eventually multi-party multi-issue negotiations. Students were assigned to different roles and partners each week. The class regathered for debriefing after each role-play, to summarise the group outcomes and look for common themes.
The first part of the assessment was a learning journal (submitted twice) in which students had to analyse both the processes and the outcome of each week's role-play and debriefing. The analysis had to be in terms of the theories contained in the texts, with extensive referencing to justify their views. It wasn't possible to complete this assessment without reading the texts and demonstrating an understanding of the theories.
The second part of the assessment was a reflective essay in the form of a "letter to a friend". This "friend" was about to enter into a very important (unspecified) negotiation. The students had to explain the three most important things they'd learnt about negotiation, and they had to do so without the use of technical terms or references. The letter had to contain enough information that the "friend" would appreciate the importance of the three aspects, and be equipped to put them into practice. Again, it wasn't possible to complete this assessment without a clear understanding of the theories of negotiation. The letter to a friend was also an excellent test of written communication skills.
None of the role-plays were written specifically for the subject. All were from readily available sources - publications of the National Institute of Dispute Resolution in Washington DC, and the Clearinghouse Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School. (Another source recently found is the journal Gaming and Simulation.) There was an advantage in the role-plays being non-building. It removed the potentially damaging variables of expert knowledge and argument over construction methods. The only investment in time was to locate and chose between the multitude of available materials. Of course, despite my best efforts, some worked well and some did not.
Student participation in the role plays was no problem, although the first week was confusing to most. The major difficulty for students was in understanding what was required in the assessment. None had experienced the use of a learning journal. None had experienced a subject without lectures (which they routinely reproduce in their assessments). Many of the first journal submissions were a description of events rather than an analysis and interpretation. More guidance, perhaps with a worked example, would help. The letter to a friend also had its problems. In many instances, three well-explained concepts (as was requested) became a list of twenty briefly mentioned items. Some students were unable to escape the notion of all assignments being submitted as a formal report, with index, headings, and point form notation. Of most concern were the deficiencies in written communication skills displayed by some of these students. Standardised formal reports and examinations hadn't identified some serious problems.
However, the positive outcomes of the subject greatly outweighed the difficulties. The students were invited to include personal experiences in their journals. Several gave examples of how they had successfully tried the techniques in their part-time work, or how they had recognised some of their past mistakes. A mid-semester class survey established that most were completing the recommended chapter pre-readings and progressively writing their journals after each class. There was unanimous support for the appropriateness of the role-play techniques for this topic. Feedback at the end of semester was also very positive towards the negotiations component. Several students nominated the subject among the most valuable they had studied. There was certainly no lack of enthusiasm shown in class during the role-plays and debriefings.
Despite the difficulties with the assessments, the students still demonstrated a very thorough understanding of the theories of negotiation and conflict management. Many students referenced materials beyond the two required texts. Many of my comments in their learning journals were in the form of a dialogue rather than correction, as the students raised many complex and insightful issues. I don't believe this would have occurred without the motivation of the role-plays to bring the material to life and immerse the students in the issues.
Interpersonal communication skills developed throughout the course of the subject. In many subjects, several vocal students dominate discussions while the rest remain passive. With most of the early role-plays being one-on-one negotiations, it was not possible for students to be passive in this subject. By the later group negotiations, all were freely contributing. The debriefing sessions were usually the most heated, with everyone feeling confident enough to voice their opinion. A recurring feature was the involvement of several students from Non-English Speaking Backgrounds. The English speakers would comment afterwards how they recognised it was their responsibility to work around the communication barrier (not just the NESB student's) if they wanted their negotiation to succeed. Several found how negotiations would stall if they frustrated their NESB partner.
I had no reason to doubt the students' negotiation skills by the end of the subject. The final role-play was a complex scorable six-party multi-issue negotiation for a development company seeking approval from various interest groups. Each interest group had different priorities and scores on each of the issues, with a minimum total score for agreement. Three negotiations took place, with two students representing each interest group in each negotiation. An agreement between five parties was necessary for the development to proceed. One group reached a five party agreement, and a second reached a six-party agreement (one of only nine possible six party combinations out of a total of 56 possible agreements). The significant feature was how the students by this stage understood the importance of alliances, with most of the action taking place in the corridors outside the negotiation rooms. A member of the interest group would stay at the formal negotiation table, while the other was outside making deals. This outcome was a result of the previous week's role-play which demonstrated the need for alliances. One of the alliances caused the downfall of the third group. A particular opposition interest group was best served by the negotiation failing. They were able to block all possible discussion after finding a secret alliance partner.
Perhaps the most significant outcome I found was the effect the subject had on my own approach to negotiation and conflict management. It's impossible to teach a subject in this manner without getting closely involved. Several of my colleagues have noticed a change and complimented my new approach to resolving conflicts. This unexpected outcome is perhaps an example of how effective role-play learning can be. It goes beyond learning facts or increasing knowledge or gaining skills, and beyond reaching an overall theoretical understanding of a topic. It's an example of how learning can be a process of making sense of reality, in which the learner changes their views and actions.
Without a doubt, this subject was the most rewarding educational experience I have been involved in, either as a teacher or as a student. Significantly, there was nothing new about the subject. It was simply an adaptation of proven teaching strategies from other fields. The same process can occur with all of the other teaching methods mentioned at the start of this paper. They can all be effectively used in a multi-disciplinary field such as building. They will all be needed if we are to develop the quality of graduate described by the Higher Education Council.
Email Brian David Phillips at phillips@nccu.edu.tw.
Back to the TAIPEI ROLEPLAYERS Main Page