<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=koi8-r">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#f0ffff>
<DIV><FONT face="Arial Cyr" size=2>Fellow OS'rs greetings!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Today I experimented with the use of OS at a training for
trainers. I wanted to share about this experience and would be curious to hear
from others, too.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>As I have written before, I am a facilitator/trainer with
Alternatives to Violence Project, a community volunteer conflict resolution
training program started by US Quakers in the mid-70's. This program now exists
in over 30 countries (it started in US prisons) and in several countries of the
former Soviet Union. (<A href="http://www.avpusa.org">www.avpusa.org</A>). I
give the URL, but I don't think any of the websites really convey the power of
these workshops, unfortunately.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Today ended a 3 day training for trainers we conducted in
Moscow. Primarily prison psychologists and community folks participated in the
training. For the first time ever we used OS in a T4T format. It was included at
the end of the training as a way of articulating the theoretical aspects of this
work. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Initially, the training design plan was to conduct a
4-hour OS on the topic of "I the AVP facilitator" and as expected outcomes
to find answers to 8 questions having to do with the work of an AVP trainer.
Questions such as: desired qualities of such a trainer, experiential learning,
working in a team, and more. The idea was that instead of offering experiential
exercises that would generate the theory aspects of these workshops (which would
prepare participants to then run a piece of a workshop and receive feedback), to
use OS. That OS would generate a lot more learning. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>The idea of using OS in a T4T came to me from learning about
Jo Toepfer and Michael Pannewitz's OS facilitator training design. Jo and
Michael used that approach when they trained members of the NGO
trainer/consultant professional association Intertraining in Moscow a few years
back. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Fortunately, I consulted with Jo and Michael over the phone a
few days before the training and they helped me see that putting an OS piece at
the beginning of the training could disrupt the whole training. The divergence
followed by a structured facilitator-dependent format would draw resistance from
the group. They suggested either scrap the OS entirely or put it at the end.
Also they pointed out, quite helpfully that setting answers to 8 questions as a
desired outcome was not really in the spirit of OS; it closed the space. This
conversation was really helpful; it really humbled me and helped me realize how
much more I need to learn!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>After consulting with my co-trainers, we decided to go ahead
with keeping OS-- at the end. We figured, we intended on using OS, let's give it
a whirl.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>As a training design we had as a consequence:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>1. Community building (participants getting to know
eachother)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>2. Team building (practice facilitatition teams getting to
know each other)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>3. Practicum- different teams conduct mini-workshops and
receive group feedback</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>4. OS: My step towards becoming an AVP facilitator: qualities,
skills, knowledge, and principles</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>5. closing session</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I wanted to ensure that the training team (all 3 of us) could
participate in Open Space, so we could all be resources for the group and offer
what we felt was important in the way of theory. So, I coached someone who
participated in an OS I led recently to lead it. This was an awkward choice-- to
bring someone the group didn't know on the last day to lead an OS.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Nevertheless, IT WORKED! Participants dug the freedom, they
got to touch upon a lot of interesting ideas. I got to share a number of
different things. Some of the things we discussed were: facilitator styles (how
to dress, how to talk, what kind of language to use), interactive learning,
exercises processing, hidden agendas...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>And after having open space, we had another break and had a
non-OS closing session.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>This training design assumed that all theory would be conveyed
in OS. Not all theory was conveyed in OS and only some got the theory that was
conveyed in OS-- Law of 2 feet after all.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>This design was a radical move for me-- giving no theory and
plunging the group straight into practice.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>And yet I don't think this group walked away any less prepared
than other groups. I don't chalk that up to the training design. Rather the
intense learning happened in spite of; we just had a group of very sharp
participants. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>My conclusion, however, after this experience is that if I
were to repeat this experience, my thoughts at this point would be to do the
following:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Keep the same design, but instead of OS-- conduct something
OS-like (and not call it OS): have predefined topics (covering all the
theoretical aspects of AVP facilitation) in concurrent sessions; 4 principles
and Law would still apply. And include a required output--- a group presentation
on these different topics (I'd have to think this thru).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts in using OS for all
or part of a T4T. Can you train a group in a skill using OS entirely? This was a
question I put to Jo and Michael. Michael has his doubts about this, especially
when it comes to something like learning to play an instrument (if I recall what
you said, Michael, correctly).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I still wonder about conducting an OS facilitator training
entirely in OS. Yes, the group goes where the passion is. But how do we
know that someone has "learned" OS. Of course, that is a huge question,
what does it mean to "learn" to conduct OS. And I recall
Jo paraphrasing, I think, Harrison: "You can't teach OS, you can't learn
OS, but you can remember it." Maybe someone can unpack that for me.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>For me a big part of learning to facilitate an OS is about the
pre-work with a sponsor; also defining the theme. It's about learning how to use
it as an instrument. Again any training typically just gives you the minimum so
that you can go out in the world and be able to do something. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Really happy to share this,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Raffi </FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST@LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist@listserv.boisestate.edu:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist