INTRODUCTION

Technology of Participation (ToP) covers three methods for group facilitation developed by the Institute of Cultural Affairs (ICA), a US- based organization long involved in organizing work in marginalized communities throughout the United States. ToP was introduced in the Philippines by ICA twenty-five years ago. It was re-introduced and used extensively in the Governance and Local Democracy (GOLD) Project by the Associates in Rural Development (ARD) to enhance and sustain the participation of many stakeholders in the expanded operations of local government units (LGUs) brought about by the passage of the Local Government Code of 1991.

For the GOLD Project which was focused on decentralization and local governance, ToP provided its users with practical tools for enabling highly energized, productive and meaningful participation in processes required for truly proactive and responsive local governance (Basic Group Facilitation Methods Course, Manual for Trainers, 1999). But more importantly, these basic group facilitation methods can really be applied in almost every situation.

Aside from the ToP training I have been giving to some LGU’s, (on request from the Center for Local Governance), I have been using the TOP methods in both my the undergraduate and graduate level classes. My experience substantiated the observation of Spee (1988) that using ToP in the classroom demonstrates collaborative and participative learning. ToP methods really enhance participation inside the four corners of the classroom and also in similar small group settings.

THE BASIC METHODS OF ToP

The Discussion (ORID) Method

The Discussion Method is a series of questions that guides the group on its journey dialogue. It takes the group through four levels of awareness: (1) Objective, (2) Reflective, (3) Interpretative, (4) Decisional .

The objective level questions aim to establish the facts and data; they appeal to the senses – what are seen, heard, tasted and touched, etc. The reflective level questions explore initial reactions to the facts and data generated in the previous level; the questions appeal to the heart: emotions, memories and associations. The interpretative level questions require critical thinking on the experience/issue and they appeal to the mind: meaning, value and significance. The decisional level questions appeal to future resolves, collective opinion, proposed next steps, something that can and will be done. These questions, therefore, challenge the group(s) to come up with definite responses to the topics and/or issues of the ORID discussion (Leading Local Governance, 2001).

I have been using the ORID method in most conversational situations, from informal chats to formal discussions. In the classroom, it works for the usual ‘recapitulation” of the previous lesson before formally starting the discussions on one or two identified topics in a given class session. It is also applicable in guiding class discussions on inputs given by a discussant or reporter of a given topic or issue. And it is most appropriate in facilitating the analysis of management cases or caselets. The four levels of ORID insure that the details of the cases are reviewed and processed.

A good ORID conversation comes across to participants as a discussion that is spontaneous and free-flowing. The participants become less conscious of and therefore less constrained by the process and structure. In the classroom, this atmosphere guarantees inter-active participation among the students.

Beyond optimizing participation, the ORID method helps focus and direct the discussion to the relevance of a topic and/or issue and the related experiences are put in the proper perspective. Thus, an objective course of action is generated.

Using ORID can then be very relevant in coming up with critical decisions, in managing people and other resources and in priming higher level of participation and involvement in both formal and informal groups. Thus, this method can be recommended in the following situations: facilitating a meeting, inquiring or seeking relevant report or information from the members of a group; analyzing a report submitted by the members of a group; handling and settling conflicts and institutional-based problems or issues; reflecting and reviewing plans, programs and other similar document; monitoring and evaluating projects; motivating and counseling members. These instances show that ORID can be applicable in a wide range of situations.

The Workshop Method

The Workshop Method is a five-step process that organizes the group on its journey towards deepening the discussion/insights and arriving at consensus on appropriate group action. It is best used in situations which require problem identification and problem-solving and in generating concrete results given a brief period.

The first of these steps is the CONTEXT. In this step, the parameters for the group discussion are defined and set, usually in the form of a focus question that the group will seek to answer. This is then followed by the BRAINSTORM, in which data and ideas are generated at three levels – first individually, and then in small groups, and finally in plenary. Once the ideas have been generated, the third step guides the group to identify similar ideas and CLUSTER them accordingly. With similarly intended ideas clustered, the group then proceeds to give a TITLE to each of the clusters. Once all the clusters are titled, the titles are read and reviewed insofar as they directly respond to the focus question. The fifth step is a brief collective REFLECT session at which the implications of consensus points (the titles) are reviewed and affirmed (ToP Manual for Course Participants, 1999).

This Workshop Method has been useful in my Management classes both in the undergraduate and graduate programs. Whenever I introduce a topic which requires problem identification and/or an issue which requires problem-solving, the process becomes my favorite classroom methodology. As observed, students find the entire process exciting, fun, and enjoyable. This is primarily because the process is simple and permits creativity. The parameters for analysis are well defined through the focus question. The use of colored idea cards, markers and tag cards as materials, while part of the motivation to get the students involved in the entire process, enables the students to keep track of their contributions to the workshop outputs. Of course, my “choreography”- briskly moving ideas cards from a column to another column as desired by students – becomes extremely important as it also helps students sustain their energy level.

Generally, the level of student participation is maximized with the three levels of brainstorming (individual, group and plenary). Some students may not be conscious of their instant reactions, comments, expressions but these can be counted as part of their “participation”. The students’ creativity in formulating answers would normally surface Even those “silent” students who seldom talk and contribute in typical “lecture-discussion” methodology become “talkative” already because they are no longer conscious that they are sharing, reciting and participating.. Moreover, because of the groups’ integrated thinking, their strong sense of “idea ownership” and responsibility for the identified ideas are enhanced.

The Action Planning Method

The Action Planning Method organizes the group on its journey towards developing a realistic and doable plan for under taking a particular event or activity through a seven-step process.

The first of these steps is the CONTEXT, at which the basic parameters of the activity being planned for are considered in detail by the group – What? When? Why? How? And by whom? It is from this initial unity that the group then proceeds to formulate its action plan. Total agreement among the participants in these parameters is imperative.

The next step in the process is the VICTORY CIRCLE. Here, the participants are guided to collectively define what exactly they mean by “success” and identify the success indicators for the activity being planned. As soon as this is completed the group then proceeds to do an assessment of the CURRENT REALITY – both in terms of the internal group’s strengths and weaknesses, and the external benefits and dangers. After this, the group proceeds to articulate its COMMITMENT towards insuring that “victory” will be achieved in the implementation of the plan. Once this has been articulated, a KEY ACTION WORKSHOP is conducted for the group to identify the clusters of needed actions and the members to constitute the various work teams that will be charged with the implementation of these actions. After this, the group breaks up into the various work teams formed to work out the CALENDAR OF ACTIVITIES and ASSIGNMENTS. It is at this point in the process that the action plan is almost completed – activities are scheduled, coordinate mechanisms are discussed and the allocation of resources is collectively decided upon. Finally, a REFLECT is conducted to confirm the group resolve, discuss the implications, and get the plan finally going (ToP Manual for Course Participants, 1999)

The Action Planning Method worked well in my Business Policy and Corporate Planning classes. I demonstrated this method as part of the preparation of a long-range plan (strategic plan). Though students found the process exhausting, draining and overwhelming, they also found their experience different. According to them, results are generated quickly – meaning, in just a short period of time, they can come up with concrete outputs because the process is directed and focused on what is being planned for. The process requires participation not only in the formulation stage but also in its implementation. Moreover, commitments in the identified tasks to be implemented are settled in a voluntary manner.

Most of the students got excited during the creation of the work teams and the preparation of the calendar of activities and assignments. The details are of course, identified and at the same time analyzed thoroughly if fitting and appropriate given the identified current reality, and considering also their commitment so that the victory can be achieved.

The first group of students whom I demonstrated this method planned for a lecture forum to serve as the class culminating activity. The students involved really worked based on, and their commitments to, the action plan developed. The lecture forum was successfully held last February 23, 2001.

Recently, another group developed an action plan regarding the enrollment process of the University, targeting to pre-test this Summer 2001. However, the group involved decided to forward the action plan to AdeN-SSG whom they think will be in authority to prepare the proposal regarding the said enrollment process.

The action planning method can be best applied in our University by the different departments and colleges to insure the participation in the planning of both the faculty and staff, and even the students. The co-curricular and extra-curricular organizations can also make use of the tool when they have to prepare short term action plans covering periods of 3 to 6 months.

CONCLUSION

Successful applications of the ToP methods rest on the user’s facilitative leadership. A facilitative leader insures group participation, encourages teamwork and creativity, guides them to arrive at a consensus, initiates reflection on the points of consensus, and motivate them to action. These foundational values of participation, teamwork, creativity, consensus, reflection and action are reflected on the students’ experience inside the “ToP-ized” classroom and other similar small group settings. As demonstrated, they become empowered in the learning process. Learning becomes collaborative and participatory because it is not being controlled solely by the teacher who in the traditional classroom setting, has the authority and gives the commands.

REFERENCES

Spee, Ph.D. Jim. Technology of Participation (TOP) in the Classroom. Department of Management and Business, Whitehead College, University of Redlands, Redlands, CA 92473, International Association of Facilitators, 1988 Conference, Santa Clara, California.

Leading Local Governance, Simple Conversation Techniques that Work. Governance and Local Democracy Project, United States Agency for International Development, Manila 2001.

Technology of Participation: Basic Group Facilitation Methods, Level One: Manual for Course Participants. Governance and Local Democracy Project, United States Agency for International Development, Manila 1999.

Technology of Participation: Basic Group Facilitation Methods Course Manual for Trainers. Governance and Local Government Project, United States Agency for International Development, Manila 1999.