Theory behind the Games

UAA Department of Health, Physical Education & Recreation

Wil Rickards

Theory behind the Games The following pages will give you some ideas with regards to why I do what I do. I hope that it helps - Wil

CAFÉ Workshop – Experiential Tools for the Classroom

Fall 2006


Wil Rickards

The More I Know About You... By Jim Cain My friend and colleague Chris Cavert once mentioned with regard to his middle school students, that, “The more they know about each other, the less likely they are to hurt each other.” For a middle school teacher in a rather rough district, the concept of creating a classroom where students feel a part of the whole rather than detached from the whole is paramount, especially considering the results in several schools around the country where one or two students specifically became disenfranchised, and demonstrated this impact with weapons and sufficient ammunition to illustrate their point all too well. Chris chose to begin each school year with a carefully selected series of events and adventurebased learning activities, so that students would focus on what they had in common with their fellow students, rather than what separated them from each other. The result was that his students experienced less classroom disruptions, and were able to go farther in the required curriculum, because they had spent a few days at the beginning of the year building community in the classroom and deciding how they would act and treat each other. Chris has even written down some of his insights and activities in his book, Games for Teachers. You can contact Chris for more information at: [email protected] Taken from: http://www.teachmeteamwork.com/secure/dis/theory/docs/venn.pdf

The 3 Key Components of a Successful Teambuilding Activity by Tom Heck

Fun A great teambuilding activity is fun. It can still be fun if people are struggling andsweating and working hard. Fun means it engages the imagination.

Movement Every great experiential teambuilding activity/program I’ve ever seen gets people moving, up and out of their seat, interacting with the space around them in a new or different way.

Risk/Challenge There must be a degree of risk or challenge involved in the activity. This could mean falling backwards into the arms of the group or it could mean sharing a thought or feeling with the group. You want to set things up so people have opportunities to step outside their “Comfort Zones”. A skillful leader is able to create a supportive and nurturing environment that encourages risk taking. © Copyright 2003 by Tom Heck. All rights reserved. Tom Heck is the Teach Me Teamwork COACH www.teachmeteamwork.com


Fall 2006


Wil Rickards

Taken From : http://www.businessballs.com/

Ingham and Luft - Johari Window Model

The Johari Window model is also referred to as a 'disclosure/feedback model of self awareness', and by some people an 'information processing tool'. The Johari Window actually represents information feelings, experience, views, attitudes, skills, intentions, motivation, etc - within or about a person - in relation to their group, from four perspectives, which are described below. The Johari Window model can also be used to represent the same information for a group in relation to other groups. Johari Window terminology refers to 'self' and 'others': 'self' means oneself, ie, the person subject to the Johari Window analysis. 'Others' means other people in the person's group or team.

Johari Window Four Regions 1. what is known by the person about him/herself and is also known by others - open area, open self, free area, free self, or 'the arena' 2. what is unknown by the person about him/herself but which others know - blind area, blind self, or 'blindspot' 3. what the person knows about him/herself that others do not know - hidden area, hidden self, avoided area, avoided self or 'facade' 4. what is unknown by the person about him/herself and is also unknown by others - unknown area or unknown self

As a short explanation good group games increase the open free area preferably initially through disclosure and as a team becomes more comfortable through feedback solicitation and shared discovery. www.businessballs gives a very thorough description.


Fall 2006


Wil Rickards

Taken from: http://www.teachmeteamwork.com/secure/dis/theory/docs/4classes.pdf © Copyright 2003 by Tom Heck. All rights reserved. The Four Classes of Human Experience

There are four classes of human experience (outlined above). The ideal situation is to be living a life full of Class I experiences. When one is living Class I experiences on a daily basis it’s very likely that one feels fulfilled as well. The least desirable experience is a Class IV experience. If one’s life is filled with Class IV experiences, it’s highly likely one feels unfulfilled, lonely and empty. I first learned of this model while attending a conference led by Anthony Robbins. I’ve since used it many times with groups during debriefs and especially when individuals in the group choose to exhibit less than Class I behavior. In the late 90’s I delivered several teambuilding programs at a week long Rotary Youth Leadership Camp located in North Carolina. The students attending were all highly motivated and high achieving high school students. During one of the training events, one of the camp leaders asked me to observe one of the students (I’ll call him John). It seems John was acting the part of class clown at camp and it was starting to get on the nerves of the camp leaders. John was masterful at walking the fine line between being funny and being annoying and rude. To top it off, he was a nice kid, which made it more difficult for the camp leaders to talk to him about his behavior. I agreed to watch his behavior during the teambuilding program – and sure enough, John pushed the limits of being the class clown. After the program, I asked to speak with John and showed him the Four Classes of Human Experience model. I then gave him some feedback about his class clown behavior and told him how it made me feel as a presenter (it didn’t make me feel good). I asked John what “Class” of experience he was having acting like the class clown. He quickly recognized that it wasn’t a Class I experience because I was not happy with his behavior and neither were the camp organizers and even the other students were beginning to get annoyed with him because he was so disruptive. John started to get a little stressed because he thought I was asking him to drop the humor all together. I told him that wasn’t the case at all. I found him to be very funny. What I challenged him to do was to figure out a way to be humorous AND make it a Class I experience (his current approach was creating a Class III experience). John later shared that our conversation created a major shift for him. He appreciated the fact that I was not being judgmental or laying down a “cease and desist” order. He said looking at the Four Classes challenged to grow as a person.

Other Thoughts / Applications I use the Four Classes of Human Experience to quickly communicate to a group I’m working with the standard I expect (“The goal is to make this event a Class I experience for all involved”). While working with a group I might show them the model and ask them what type of experience they are having currently (especially if they’re going through a tough time) and what type they choose to have. I’ll then ask them what it will take, both personally and as a team, to make their choice a reality.


Fall 2006


Wil Rickards

Taken from: http://www.teachmeteamwork.com/secure/dis/theory/docs/4stages.pdf The 4 Stages of Group Development & the Corresponding 4 Leadership Styles

Key Understandings The stages are predictable. • Each stage requires different skills from the group leader. If the group leader attempts to use the same style of leadership through the stages of group development, the group will evolve slower and it will be harder for the group members to become empowered. • No stage is better than any other. All are necessary and all are healthy. • The job of the group leader is to: ☯ ☯ ☯ ☯

Help the group move through the stages of group development in a healthy (Class I*) way. Help team members develop the skills and knowledge so they become self-directed. Provide/create an environment where team members feel willing to risk, grow, take responsibility, and be creative. Empower team members by helping them develop their skills and knowledge and supporting them to use their talents.

• Groups can regress (example: go from “performing” to “storming). Causes include: ☯ Group membership changes (someone is added or someone leaves). ☯ Task changes ☯ Major event occurs which disrupts group functioning. When groups regress leadership style must change to match the needs of the group. • It’s useful for groups to understand the 4 Stages of Group Development model when the group is in the forming stage. When group members have this knowledge early on, the group is likely to evolve faster.

* Class I Experience: feels good, good for you, good for others, serves the greater good. CAFÉ Workshop – Experiential Tools for the Classroom

Fall 2006



Wil Rickards

Fall 2006


© Copyright 2003 by Tom Heck. All rights reserved. Team & Leadership Coaching

Wil Rickards

www.teachmeteamwork.com

The Comfort Zone When I would ask the most unfit and unhealthy people how they came to be so unfit and unhealthy, many would respond with “I allowed myself to get too comfortable” (or a variation on that theme). In nature things are either growing or dieing. There is no in-between. People (and teams) are the same way and growth requires stretching and stretching is not always comfortable. When I work with a team I share with them this model, which shows graphically the Comfort Zone, Stretch Zone and Panic Zone. My job as a team coach is to provide opportunities for individuals and the team as a whole to step outside of their Comfort Zone and “play” in the Stretch Zone. The Comfort Zone is a person’s standard form of reference. This is the place where there is a complete absence of fear and anxiety. A person operating in the Comfort Zone feels 100% confident of their ability to perform a given task. There is a degree of boredom associated with this zone. The team coach who leads adventure-learning activities does so to get the group to move into the Stretch Zone because this is the zone where a majority of growth and learning happens. A skilled facilitator will present activities in a sequence that promotes a building effect - - starting off with “easier” activities and building to more “difficult” activities. While working for the YMCA in the mid 90’s, I had the opportunity to see many people (especially in early January) join the Y with the intention of improving their health and wellness. Most had a desire to increase their strength and stamina and improve flexibility. These new members would take a fitness evaluation to help them determine their current level of health and then they were encouraged to create a new goal for the level of healthy they now wanted to enjoy. A great program design (and a great team coach) manages the energy of the group and guides them throughout the day in such a way as to keep the majority of people in the Stretch Zone as much as possible. To reduce the effects of negative anxiety, the participants must never be coerced or pressured into participation in an activity. Participation in an activity must always be by choice. Adventure leaders take people out of their standard form of reference (out of the “Comfort Zone”) and ask them to engage in things new and different.If the individual or group is asked to stretch too far, they will end up in the Panic Zone where little learning takes place due to overwhelming anxiety and fear. In the Panic Zone the brain “down shifts” and higher order thinking is not possible. Ideally, participants should spend no time in the Panic Zone. In the event that someone does end up in the Panic Zone, their recovery may be quick or prolonged. Often times their trust will be diminished in the program and the facilitator. These zones are not stagnant. The more time invested in the Stretch Zone will result in either growth of the Comfort Zone (i.e. what was once a stretch is now easy and comfortable) and/or growth of the Stretch Zone. To present this idea to a group, create three big circles on the ground and identify the circles as a Comfort Zone, Stretch Zone and Panic Zone. Then read out some events (see list below) and ask people to walk to the ring that represents how they would be feeling if they had to do that event: 1. Handling venomous snakes 2. Swimming 100 yards across a lake 3. Talking to 100 people 4. Saying I love you to a total stranger 5. Relaxing at the beach 6. Singing in the shower 7. Cooking a meal for four 8. Solving word puzzles 9. Climbing a rock wall 10. Composing a song for a loved one What you’ll find (and the group will discover) is that people respond differently to a given event. For example, if asked to give a presentation to 100 people, some will feel comfortable doing it, while others will feel stretched doing it, and it will cause others to panic. If you should present an event to the group that gets them to evenly distribute themselves, ask them to volunteer what it feels like to be in that zone - - this sharing can help people to better understand the group members.


Fall 2006


Wil Rickards

The Ladder of Inference:

The following "Ladder of Inference" was, I believe, initially developed by Chris Argyris, and subsequently presented in Peter Senge's "The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization." What the diagram implies is that we begin with Real Data & Experience, the kind that would be captured by a movie camera that didn't lie. We then choose a set of Selected Data & Experience that we pay attention to. To this Selected Data & Experience we Affix Meaning, develop Assumptions, come to Conclusions, and finally develop Beliefs. Beliefs then form the basis of our Actions which create additional Real Data & Experience

We are so skilled at thinking that we jump up the ladder without knowing it:

• • • •

We tacitly register some data and ignore other data. We impose our own interpretations on these data and draw conclusions from them. We lose sight of how we do this because we do not think about our thinking. Hence, our conclusions feel so obvious to us that we see no need to retrace the steps we took from the data we selected to the conclusions we reached.

The contexts we are in, our assumptions, and our values channel how we jump up the ladder:

• •

Our models of how the world works and our repertoire of actions influence the data we select, the interpretations we make, and the conclusions we draw. Our conclusions lead us to act in ways that produce results that feed back to reinforce (usually) our contexts and assumptions.

Our skill at reasoning is both essential and gets us in trouble:

• • • •

If we thought about each inference we made, life would pass us by. But people can and do reach different conclusions. When they view their conclusions as obvious, no one sees a need to say how they reached them. When people disagree, they often hurl conclusions at each other from the tops of their respective ladders. This makes it hard to resolve differences and to learn from one another.


Fall 2006



Wil Rickards

Fall 2006


Wil Rickards

Experiential Learning Cycles: 'Experiential learning' can apply to any kind of learning through experience. 'Experiential learning' is often used by providers of training or education to refer to a structured learning sequence which is guided by a cyclical model of experiential learning. Less contrived forms of experiential learning (including accidental or unintentional learning) are usually described in more everyday language such as 'learning from experience' or 'learning through experience'. Experiential Learning Cycles An 'experiential learning cycle' is a means of representing sequences in experiential learning. It is often assumed that the stages of a 'learning cycle' are managed by a facilitator, but they can also be self-managed or even 'unmanaged' in the sense that learning from experience is a normal everyday process for most people. From a trainer's perspective, an experiential learning cycle is a 2, 3, 4 or 5 stage learning sequence which encourages continuity from one experience to another. It is sometimes referred to as a 'training cycle', which can be misleading, especially if the theory underpinning it is about learners and learning (e.g. Dewey, 1938; Kolb, 1984; Juch, 1983.) The development training process is frequently (but not exclusively) described as a 3-stage learning cycle. For example, brochures of member organisations of the Development Training Advisory Group in the 1980's included these learning cycles:

One or other of the two Brathay cycles were used to explain "The Way We Work" to customers, delegates and to new staff. The model used by Endeavour and YMCA to describe their way of working uses the same terms as those in Dewey's formula (Dewey, 1938): "Experience plus Reflection equals Learning". Although it is possible to trace the source theories, interviews with trainers have shown that such models are seen only as general guides by trainers, and that trainers will also make use of other models to explain learning processes to course delegates.

However, learning models are meant to be neither schedules for trainers to follow, nor to be malleable visual aids for trainers to use. They are (or belong to) theories about how people learn. Some of the learning experiences reported by managers might be more accurately represented by a simpler 2-stage model. Some experiences needed more stages of processing than others in order to create recognisable learning or development. Some experiences also require different kinds of processing. Data suggests that it may not always be possible or appropriate to follow a 3or more- stage cycle and review every experience to the extent that learning can be identified and 'applied' to the next activity. If learners reflect in some way on their experience, then they can be said (in my usage) to be following an experiential learning cycle of at least two stages. A 2-stage learning cycle:


Fall 2006


Wil Rickards

The concept of a 'cycle' may not readily fit examples of experiential learning in which there is either a significant overlap or a long interval between the 'stages' of a 'cycle'. Despite the existence of examples of experiential learning in this thesis which stretch the concept of a learning 'cycle', I still find the basic concept a useful and versatile one.

Despite the currency of 3 stage learning cycles in development training, it is 4- stage learning cycles that appear to be the basis of most experiential learning theories. Bert Juch (1983: 216) has collected and listed seventeen 4-stage 'learning process cycles' linked to various learning theories, which he has attempted to synthesise by creating one of his own:

The one 5-stage cycle presented by Juch is the learning sequence described in Kelly's Personal Construct Theory (Kelly, 1955):

A very different 5-stage cycle is favoured by Pfeiffer and Jones (1983) as the sequence to be managed by facilitators of 'structured learning experiences': SOME LIMITATIONS OF LEARNING STYLES AND LEARNING CYCLES The model which dominates experiential learning theory is a four stage learning cycle, of which there are many versions, the one I have found most frequently quoted being that of Kolb (1984). Closely related to these are theories and models of learning styles (Honey and Mumford, 1982; Juch, 1983; Kolb, 1984). Both kinds of theory are about learning rather than about development. Kolb has himself brought attention to the fact that his 'learning cycle' model and his 'learning styles' model concern learning rather than development. He has another theory about development which he calls "the experiential learning theory of development" (Kolb, 1984: Chapter 6). This theory involves converting his learning cycle model by superimposing a three tier cone on top of the cycle (Kolb, 1984: 141). Kolb also clarifies the limitations of his Learning Style Inventory, pointing out that it only represents "elementary learning orientations" which he sees as being in a different dimension to that of development (Kolb, 1984: 76, 98). Why is it, then, that courses for personal development, social development, manager development, self development, organisation development etc. are often based on a learning model? Why is it that development training brochures generally show just one model - a cyclical learning model? Is there not a development model that would be more suitable? Would a development model more accurately describe what learners experience on these courses? Would a development model more accurately describe what clients expect from outdoor management development? Customers and participants are often seeking both learning and development. While experiential learning theories and models help trainers and learners to conceptualise learning, the same theories are not, in my view, well suited for conceptualising development.

This is a synopsis of work from Roger Greenaway’s PhD thesis which can be found at http://reviewing.co.uk/research/ple_abs.htm


Fall 2006


Wil Rickards

Taken from www.businessballs.com Action Centred Leadership - A Model For Team Leadership And Management John Adair's simple Action-Centred Leadership model (action-centered if you prefer the US spelling) provides a great blueprint for leadership and the management of any team, group or organization. Action Centred Leadership is also a simple leadership and management model, which makes it easy to remember and apply, and to adapt for your your own situation. Good managers and leaders should have full command of the three main areas of the Action Centred Leadership model, and should be able to use each of the elements according to the situation. Being able to do all of these things, and keep the right balance, gets results, builds morale, improves quality, develops teams and productivity, and is the mark of a successful manager and leader. John Adair's Action-Centred Leadership Model

The three parts are: • achieving the task • managing the team or group • managing individuals Adair's action-centred leadership task-team-individual model adapts extremely well (as below) for the demands of modern business management. When using it in your own environment think about the aspects of performance necessary for success in your own situation, and incorporate local relevant factors into the model to create your own interpretation. This will give you a very useful management framework: Your responsibilities as a manager for achieving the Task are: • identify aims and vision for the group, purpose, and direction - define the activity (the task) • identify resources, people, processes, systems and tools (inc. financials, communications, IT) • create the plan to achieve the task - deliverables, measures, timescales, strategy and tactics • establish responsibilities, objectives, accountabilities and measures, by agreement and delegation • set standards, quality, time and reporting parameters • control and maintain activities against parameters • monitor and maintain overall performance against plan • report on progress towards the group's aim • review, re-assess, adjust plan, methods and targets as necessary Your responsibilities as a manager for the Group are: • establish, agree and communicate standards of performance and behaviour • establish style, culture, approach of the group - soft skill elements


Fall 2006


Wil Rickards

• monitor and maintain discipline, ethics, integrity and focus on objectives • anticipate and resolve group conflict, struggles or disagreements • assess and change as necessary the balance and composition of the group • develop team-working, cooperation, morale and team-spirit • develop the collective maturity and capability of the group - progressively increase group freedom and authority • encourage the team towards objectives and aims - motivate the group and provide a collective sense of purpose • identify, develop and agree team- and project-leadership roles within group • enable, facilitate and ensure effective internal and external group communications • identify and meet group training needs • give feedback to the group on overall progress; consult with, and seek feedback and input from the group

Your responsibilities as a manager for each Individual are: • understand the team members as individuals - personality, skills, strengths, needs, aims and fears • assist and support individuals - plans, problems, challenges, highs and lows • identify and agree appropriate individual responsibilities and objectives • give recognition and praise to individuals - acknowledge effort and good work • where appropriate reward individuals with extra responsibility, advancement and status • identify, develop and utilise each individual's capabilities and strengths • train and develop individual team members • develop individual freedom and authority

action centred leadership and john adair John Adair, born 1934, British, developed his Action Centred Leadership model while lecturing at Sandhurst Royal Military Academy and as assistant director and head of leadership department at The Industrial Society. This would have been during the 1960's and 70's, so in terms of management theories, Adair's works is relatively recent. He helped change perception of management to encompass leadership, to include associated abilities of decision-making, communication and time-management. As well as developing the Action Centred Leadership model, he wrote over 25 books on management and leadership, including Effective Leadership, Not Bosses but Leaders, and Great Leaders. Leadership is different to management. All leaders are not necessarily great managers, but the best leaders leaders will possess good management skills. One skill-set does not automatically imply the other will be present. The Action Centred Leadership model is Adair's best known work, in which the three elements - Achieving the Task, Developing the Team and Developing Individuals - are mutually dependent, as well as being separately essential to the overall leadership role. Importantly as well, Adair set out these core functions of leadership and says they are vital to the Action Centered Leadership model: • Planning - seeking information, defining tasks, setting aims • Initiating - briefing, task allocation, setting standards • Controlling - maintaining standards, ensuring progress, ongoing decision-making • Supporting - individuals' contributions, encouraging, team spirit, reconciling, morale • Informing - clarifying tasks and plans, updating, receiving feedback and interpreting • Evaluating - feasibility of ideas, performance, enabling self assessment The Action Centred Leadership model therefore does not stand alone, it must be part of an integrated approach to managing and leading, and also which should include a strong emphasis on applying these principles through training.

Adair also promotes a '50:50 rule' which he applies to various situations involving two possible influencers, eg the view that 50% of motivation lies with the individual and 50% comes from external factors, among them leadership from another. This contradicts most of the motivation gurus who assert that most motivation is from within the individual. He also suggests that 50% of team building success comes from the team and 50% from the leader. CAFÉ Workshop – Experiential Tools for the Classroom

Fall 2006


Wil Rickards

ATTRIBUTION THEORY One of the most amazing features of human beings is this: They can explain anything. Maybe it comes from the fact that we are parents and our children keep asking us, "Why?" And as older, superior beings, we just naturally have the proper explanation to our kid's request. ("Why did I drop that sofa on my foot? I did it to show you what a severe bruise looks like, that's why.") No matter the cause, we have a strong need to understand and explain what is going on in our world. Because people must explain, it opens up some interesting influence possibilities. Think about it for a minute. If you can affect how people understand and explain what is going on, you might be able to influence them, too. First, let's understand the basic principles of how people explain things. Then we will look at applications.

ATTRIBUTION THEORY There is a theory about how people explain things. It is called Attribution Theory. The theory is really quite simple despite its rather strange sounding name. (When you see the term, "attribution," you should think of the term, "explanation," as a synonym.) The theory works like this. When we offer explanations about why things happened, we can give one of two types. One, we can make an external attribution. Two, we can make internal attribution. An external attribution (get ready for this) assigns causality to an outside agent or force. Or as kids would say, "The devil made me do it." An external attribution claims that some outside thing motivated the event. By contrast, an internal attribution assigns causality to factors within the person. Or as the sinner would say, "I'm guilty, grant me forgiveness." An internal attribution claims that the person was directly responsible for the event. Here are some common examples. You are taking a class and you get test results back. You take a peek and see, ahhhhh, a 65%. You think about these disappointing results for a minute and realize what a lousy teacher you've got and how badly written the textbook is and how unfair the test was and . . . you make a lot of external attributions. What caused the 65%? Events outside of you. External things. Now, on the next test you take a peek and see, ahhhh, a 95%. Well, what can I say? When you're hot, you're hot. If you've got it, flaunt it. Some people are born great. Where's the causality? Inside of you, right? You assign causality to factors within the person and make internal attributions. Okay, this is real simple. When the world asks us, "Why?" we provide either an internal attribution or an external attribution. Pretty obvious, but what has this got to do influence? Consider this chain of events. 1. The world asks me, "Why?" 2. I provide an attribution. 3. My future behavior depends on the type of attribution. Now, if we can control the attributions people make, then we can influence their future behavior, right? Let's check out this reasoning with a couple of examples.

ATTRIBUTION IN ACTION I want to share two illustrations from the classroom. Both examples are published research studies that were conducted with elementary school children in their classrooms with their teachers. Thus, these examples are not laboratory studies of influence, but rather are real-world events. This makes their outcomes useful and interesting for us. The first study concerns getting kids to clean up the classroom. The second involves improving math performance and self-esteem.

Littering. A constant battle with younger children is to get them to clean up after themselves. Especially in the classroom where there are twenty or thirty kids, neatness really makes a difference. How can you get kids to be neater? Our first example made kids neater with Attribution Theory. They set the kids up such that the kids performed a desired behavior, then were provoked to think about why they did that behavior. And, of course, the situation was set up so that the children would make an internal attribution ("I did it because I'm that kind of kid"). Here's what happened. First, the researchers established a baseline for littering. They visited the 5th grade class just before recess and handed out little candies wrapped in plastic. After the kids went to the playground, the researchers counted the number of candy wrappers that were on the floor or in the waste can. And there were many more wrappers on the floor than in the can, of course. Now, the study. Its simplicity is going to surprise you. Over the next two weeks people visited this classroom. For example, the principal stopped in for a little chat and on her way out she said, "My, this is a neat classroom. You must be very neat students who CAFÉ Workshop – Experiential Tools for the Classroom

Fall 2006


Wil Rickards

care about how their room looks." And one morning the class arrived to find a note on the blackboard from the custodian which said, "This is the neatest class in school. You must be very neat and clean students." Finally, the teacher would make similar kinds of comments throughout the two week training period ("Neat room, neat kids"). That's all the researchers did. Then they came back for a second visit again just before recess. And again they handed out little wrapped candies. This time when they counted whether the wrappers went on the floor or in the waste can, they found a lot more wrappers where they belonged: In the garbage. There was a very large change in the littering and cleaning up behavior of the kids. Let's review this simple study and make sure we understand what happened. First, we use candy wrappers before and after as an objective measure of littering. Second, we have a variety of sources observing the classroom and offering explanations ("neat room, neat kids"). Also realize the things that were not going on. None of the sources modeled the correct behavior, so the kids were not copying a source with observational learning. None of the sources provided consequences of reinforcement, nor were rewards or punishments given for specific acts of behavior. None of the sources provided "arguments" about why kids should be clean and not litter. All the sources did was provide attributions. (A little side note: The researchers also tried another treatment along with the attribution training. They called it the "Persuasion Treatment." With a different classroom, all the various sources essentially gave the typical adult lectures about cleanliness and neatness. They said all the things good teachers say about littering. It had no effect on the candy wrapper test. Kids, huh? Back to the main point.) The analysis the researchers made is this. When the kids heard, "neat room, neat kids," they had to think about what had happened. In essence, they had to answer the question, "Explain why the room is neat?" And their answer was simple. "The room is neat because we don't litter. We're the kind of people who pick up after ourselves." In other words the children made internal attributions. And if you believe that you are the kind of person who is neat and does not litter, what happens when you have a candy wrapper? That's right, you throw it away in the waste can.

Math Achievement and Self-Esteem. Our second study goes much deeper, I think, in illustrating the impact of attribution. Littering behavior is an obvious thing. It is also a fairly simple behavior that does not depend on a lot of other factors. So, it should be easier to change. But what about something like math achievement or enhancing a child's self-esteem? These things are complex. They are related to other factors (ability, persistence, training with math and family, life experience, peer support with esteem). Can we change a child's math performance or self-esteem with attribution? Here are the details on the second study. First, the researchers used before and after measures of math achievement and selfesteem with 2nd grade students. Second, the researchers developed simple, little scripts for each student. All the teacher had to do was read the folder provided for each student, then say or write the appropriate statement. Thus, this study was highly automated. Each teacher simply followed the instructions in a preplanned, scripted way. Third, the researchers had three different kinds of treatment. Kids either got the attribution training or they got the "persuasion" training or they got "reinforcement" training. The study lasted eight days. Here's the attribution training. The teachers would say or write to the student: 1. "You seem to know your arithmetic assignments very well." 2. "You really work hard in math." 3. "You're trying more, keep at it!" Here's the persuasion training. The teachers would say or write to the student: 1. "You should be good at math." 2. "You should be getting better grades in math." 3. "You should be doing well in math." Here's the reinforcement training. The teachers would say or write to the student: 1. "I'm proud of your work." 2. "I'm pleased with your progress." 3. "Excellent progress." Before we look at the results, again let's analyze what is happening here. In the attribution training, the children are given explanations for their behavior. They are told that their math performance is due to internal factors ("You are a good math student, you try hard in math"). Thus, we would assume that these kids will make internal attributions. Now, even if this is true and the children do explain their behavior with internal attributions, will it translate into higher math scores? It is one thing to believe that you are good at something. It is another thing to be good. First, consider the self-esteem results. After all the training was over, all the kids had higher self-esteem (on a self report scale). But interestingly, children in the attribution groups had the greatest increases in self-esteem. Next, what about those math scores? That CAFÉ Workshop – Experiential Tools for the Classroom

Fall 2006


Wil Rickards

is the really important and interesting part of this second study. The children took two tests after training. One occurred immediately after the eight training days. The second was given two weeks later. Each test was composed of twenty math problems. Kids with attribution training averaged 17.5 on the first test and 17.8 on the second test. (The baseline for everyone was 15). Kids with persuasion training averaged 15.5 and 15.0. The kids with reinforcement training averaged 16 and 16. Thus, the students with attribution training scored one to two points higher than other groups and maintained that advantage during the two weeks following the training. (The standard deviation was approximately 1.0 so these mean differences are quite large.) Time for reflection . . . the training here was really quite simple. Each teacher followed a script of written or verbal statements. All the teacher did was provide the statement to each kid. So, the teacher would mosey over during seatwork and say to a child, "You really work hard at math." Or the teacher would write on a homework assignment, "You are good at math." That's it. That's all that was done.

ATTRIBUTION AND HEALTH The preceding examples demonstrate what attribution is and how simple it is to implement. Simply ask, "Why?" then try to elicit an internal attribution. We've seen it work with children, but what about adults and their health? I've got a great research illustration. And it involves just two words, "you" and "your doctor." Women were shown one of two videotapes in an attempt to motivate greater use of mammography (screening test to detect breast cancer). One videotape described what "you" the viewer would learn from the test. The other tape stressed what "your doctor" would learn from the test. After one year the two groups of women were compared to see which group obtained more screening exams. Not surprisingly, the women who were given the internal attribution ("you") were significantly more likely to have had a mammography in the preceding year compared to the women who got the external attribution ("your doctor"). How about that?

THE PROBLEM WITH EXTERNAL ATTRIBUTIONS As we have seen, when people make an internal attribution for their actions, it appears that they also change their attitudes and beliefs about themselves. Hence, they become "that kind" of person and the desired behavior follows naturally. The key for change is an internal attribution. Now, what happens when people use external attributions? Let's analyze this situation before we look at a research example. If children are made to question their behavior ("Why is this classroom so neat and clean?") and they produce an external attribution ("Because the teacher is watching"), what kind of behavior would we expect? Well, as long as the teacher is watching, then the kids will be neat, but as soon as the teacher turns her back . . . a big mess. The kids believe that their behavior is under the control of an external force and not from themselves. This illustrates the problems that can arise when people use external things (like rewards and punishments) to influence behaviors. In essence, the reward or punishment prevents people from making an internal attribution and thus bringing the desired behavior under their control. People may not "generalize" from the reward and acquire the internally motivated habit to produce the desired behavior. Instead, they will expect some external agent (namely you) to cause their actions. There is another interesting problem with external attributions. They can undermine an existing habit. That is, people who perform a behavior because "that's the kind of people they are" (internal attribution), can lose the habit if they change their pattern of attribution. Here's a real interesting research study. A group of researchers observed young kids (3 to 5 years old) at play. They noted that most of the kids loved playing with magic marker type crayons. When these crayons were available, the kids made a beeline for them and would use them with great concentration and apparent pleasure. According to Attribution Theory, we would claim that these kids used these crayons for internal reasons. There was no external force causing them to play with them. Instead, the kids freely chose the crayons and enjoyed them for intrinsic reasons. Next, the researchers promised and then gave one randomly selected group of children "Good Player Awards" as a reward for their drawing efforts with the crayons. For one week, these children knew that they would get a "prize" at the end of the week for their drawing behavior. For the remaining children, no such promises were made. There was a significant change in the crayon use among the kids who were promised external rewards for their drawing. These kids reduced how often they played with the crayons and reduced how much time they spent with the crayons. By contrast, the children who were not promised external rewards maintained their normal frequency and duration of use. From an attribution perspective, it is easy to explain this outcome. We know that the kids already wanted the crayons for internal reasons and were intrinsically motivated. However, the introduction of an external attribution changed the children and their behavior. When asked, "Why do you play with those crayons?" the kids answered "Because of the award." I want to quickly point out here that external attributions are not a uniformly bad thing. Our preceding discussion makes it seem that things like rewards and punishments and other external forces are undesirable influence tactics that never work or only work when you are around to guard your clients and deal out the carrots and the sticks. External forces can be effective if the receivers believe that they "earned" the external factor for internal reasons. Thus, rewards work well when the receiver thinks, "I got the gold sticker because I am a good


Fall 2006


Wil Rickards

student who did a good job on this assignment." Or punishments work well when the child thinks, "I got punished because I did a bad thing." If children believe that they essentially did nothing on their own to earn the external agent, then that external agent is unlikely to cause any long term, internal change.

USING ATTRIBUTION EFFECTIVELY The strongest lesson from Attribution Theory seems to be its simplicity. You might have been struck by that fact as you read about the experiments. To achieve obvious and apparently enduring effects, all the sources had to do was make a few well-timed and appropriate statements. There was no great deception or elaboration machinations. There are two key steps to effective use of Attribution. First, it must be applied in a situation where people are thinking about why things are happening. Second, the explanation must be an internal attribution. Imagine a teacher saying these things. "Boy, these homework assignments were very well done. I wonder why . . . there must be a lot of good students in this class, I guess." "Larry, I don't know if you realize it, but you've been sitting here quietly working alone on your project. You must be a very hardworking person." If you think about it, Attribution Theory gives credence to the maxim, "Less is more." The less you do, and the more you let the receiver think, then the more change you can get. You just have to make sure that the little things you do lead to internal attributions.

ATTRIBUTION AND OTHER PERSUASION TACTICS You might recall two other persuasion tools we looked at earlier. First, remember the chapter on CLARCCS Compliance Rules, especially the Rule of Commitment/Consistency. Second, recall the chapter on Sequential Requests, particularly the foot-in-the-door strategy. With both of these tools, the receiver first performs some action, then is asked to do something else related to the first action. Attribution Theory is often used to explain why Commitment/Consistency and FITD work. According to the Theory, receivers observe their actions at step one and must explain why they did what they did. If they make an internal attribution ("I signed that petition because I'm that kind of person") then they will probably perform the second related action because, "I'm still that kind of person." For example, if you are neat person, you pick up litter today and tomorrow and you also probably do other neat things. In essence Attribution Theory shows us that people can create new attitudes or beliefs or behaviors depending upon the explanations they make. If they make external attributions ("I threw the candy wrapper in the trash can because the teacher was watching"), then they are unlikely to change their attitudes about littering. But, if they make an internal attribution ("I threw the candy wrapper away because I must be a neat person") then it is likely that they will come to view themselves as a different kind of person.

REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READINGS Bem, D. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, (Vol. 6). New York: Academic Press. Lepper, M., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. (1973). Undermining children's intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the "overjustification" hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 129-137. Miller, R., Brickman, P., & Bolen, D. (1975). Attribution versus persuasion as a means of modifying behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 430-441. Rothman, A., Salovey, P., Turvey, C., & Fishkin, S. (1993). Attributions of responsibility and persuasion: Increasing mammography utilization among women over 40 with an internally oriented message. Health Psychology, 12, 39-47. Updated September 15, 1996; Copyright © SBB, 1996


Fall 2006


Wil Rickards

Also worth reading the Pygmalion Effect by RosenthalSome Useful Links: www.wilderdom.com – James Neill’s portal toamongst other things the world of outdoor & adventure education – a great starting point www.reviewing.co.uk – Roger Greenaway’s fantastic portal to everything reviewing / processing / debriefing www.changezine.co.uk – Steve Trivett’s website is one of my first stops for interesting coaching theory, the guy is prolific www.businessballs.com – outdoor management development based there are a number of games and a lot of theory based here. www.teachingteamwork.com – Tom Heck’s site once had an annual fee; he has now opened up this resource base gratis, if you are interested in games & need to see video of how they are played then sign up. www.fundoing.com – one of the great young American gamesters Chris Cavert shares some of his games http://www.training-wheels.com/About.htm - Michelle Cummings has a great store of props & some neat ideas http://www.learningunlimited.com/ - Home of Sam Sikes another of the great players http://www.karlrohnke.com/ - As Wayne said “We’re not worthy” great man, great games. www.deepfun.com – Bernie DeKoven’s great website which celebrates all things fun and using fun to educate. Other theories worth investigating: They all point the way to why play and the experiential model are good teaching modalities! Howard Gardener’s Multiple Intelligences Learning Styles – Lots of different Models in particular Bernice McCarthy’s 4-MAT, Honey & Mumford BrainGym – Paul & Gail Dennison Bandler & Grinder’s Neuro Linguistic Programming

Books worth Reading: Freedom to Learn – Carl Rogers The Well Played Game – Bernie deKoven Books by: For games: Karl Rohnke Sam Sykes Chris Cavert Jim Cain Brain based learing theory & practice: Eric Jensen


Fall 2006