Debriefing and Evaluation of the Role Play - Essay Example

Debriefing and Evaluation of the Role Play Abstract Role play has long been recognized by teachers and trainers as a powerful technique for skills and attitude development in the face-to-face environment (Carroll, 1995, pp.22-30; McGill & Beaty, 1995, pp.197-200; Gredler, 1994, pp.62-65; Turner, 1992; Eitington, 1989, pp.157-159; Craig, 1987, p.99; Ladousse, 1987, pp.110-112; Shaw, Corsini, Blake, & Mouton, 1980, p.251). As the use of online discussion tools within university courses continues to grow, the idea of combining the powerful learning possibilities of role play with the potential of the online environment is receiving attention. The concept of asynchronous, anonymous role simulation as a learning activity is of great interest to academics and trainers (Freeman & Capper, 1999, pp.95-116). In this paper, we would be outlining in detail a role play activity and discuss on the anticipated learning outcomes and procedure, including the sub-skills of speaking that will be focused. Literature Review The consideration of new learning tasks that become possible with new technologies should be part of the educator’s strategic learning plan (Freeman & Capper, 1999, pp.95-116). We thus decided to design and implement a role play as an interactive learning activity within one module of a teaching course for academic staff at a University. The role play was designed to trial the existing face-to-face workshop that might offer more flexibility of access for participants and provide an opportunity to explore various approaches to a contentious topic within the course. Sixteen participants were divided into two groups of eight participants each and given the same directions, information and role statements. The role plays were set up within a classroom, during which participants were expected to contribute to discussion from the viewpoint of the role they were playing. At the end of the role play participants were given access to the postings from both role plays and the contributions were discussed. Marks were not allocated to the role play, although a specified level of participation was a requirement for course completion. Evaluation Methodology The evaluation methodology was grounded in the interpretive paradigm, the central endeavor of this paradigm being “to understand the subjective world of human experience” (Cohen & Manion, 1994, p. 205). Case study method was utilized, in which the researcher ‘observes’ aspects of individual or group activity in order to “probe deeply and to analyze intensively the multifarious phenomena with a view to establishing generalizations about the wider population to which the unit belongs” (Cohen & Manion, 1994, p. 106-107). In this case study the role play moderator is a “participant-observer” (Cohen & Manion, 1994, p. 107), participating to some extent in the activity being evaluated. To determine the effectiveness of the role play activity the moderator analyzed the descriptive accounts and the face-to-face discussion responses. Participant responses to the activity were also evaluated by questionnaire using closed questions on a four point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree, with provision for open comments. The questionnaire and discussion covered the effectiveness and purpose of the role play; feelings about taking part; anonymity; and role engagement. Eleven of the fourteen participants completed the questionnaire and participated in the discussion. (Initially sixteen participants were allocated roles but two left the course) The Role Play Description and Purpose The role play was designed to provide participants with a realistic forum to discuss the issue – the letters column of a supposed local newspaper, the Daily View. The role play took place at a mythical university in which criterion referenced assessment had been used within a subject. All students had achieved 100%. Participants discussed the merits of norm referenced and criterion referenced assessment. Each participant was allocated a University role within one of the two groups. Roles were: Vice Chancellor; Pro Vice Chancellor (Academic); Superior, a high achieving, high distinction student; Medium, a low achieving, pass grade student; Concerned Citizen; Faculty Member; Dean of Students; and Chair of the Student Representative Council. Only the moderator knew which role each participant was playing and participants were not able to access the other group’s discussion. Roles were allocated alphabetically according to surname except for one group of three participants from the same department who were split between the two groups. The Scenario The opening scenario was posted to both bulletin boards as a Daily View News Article. A lecturer at the University, Dr E. Grace, has given all of her students 100%. All 38 students in the subject PHR350 Professional Skills in Phrenology have received grades of 100% because Dr Grace claims each of them gained mastery on all of the required skills according to criterion referenced tests. During the role play the moderator made various comments in the form of a news item or editorial comment. These items were not pre-planned but were in response to the ongoing discussion. Participation Participants were members of academic staff from a variety of disciplines within the university. Seven of the participants were from countries in Asia and the Indian Subcontinent. Three of these participants had been very quiet in the face-to-face workshops during the course, requiring extra effort on the part of the moderator to involve them in discussions. It was hoped that these quiet participants might find the face-to-face environment more conducive to interaction. The opposite was the case. Those who were quiet in face-to-face sessions were also ‘quiet’ in the role play. They made fewer comments than most other participants, their comments were generally shorter, sometimes repeating statements and/or making uncritical and sometimes confused statements, for example: “… I believe a normal curve on student results is reasonable and should be the criterion reference assessments of standard model...” “… It is my opinion that a better performed student in a number of subjects is likely to perform better in the rest of the subject...” A few participants experienced initial difficulties in understanding instructions. Others needed a lot of prompting. In both groups participants did not attempt to enter the discussion until the second phase of the four-phase activity, even though participation was an assessment task within the course. The moderator found it necessary to send several prompts to individuals and groups reminding them about the role play and encouraging them to take part. When some still did not respond, reminders about course requirements and requests to cooperate in the activity were done. Despite repeated encouragement and reminders, four participants made only one or two comments. Debriefing and Evaluation Initially it had been planned to give all participants access to all role play activities and then administer the questionnaire. Because participation was not as enthusiastic as expected, it became a concern that participants might not go ahead to listen to the other group’s work or complete the questionnaire. It was therefore decided to conduct a debriefing and paper-based evaluation face-to-face within the course. The debriefing was intended to reinforce learning, clear up the many misconceptions about the topic, discuss the process and evaluate the activity. In the face-to-face debriefing, several of the participants became involved in a discussion about the relative merits and uses of criterion referenced and norm referenced assessment and the role play process. It was noticeable that the previously mentioned ‘quiet’ participants again did not volunteer information unless asked and then made fairly non-committal statements. Findings From the questionnaire which was completed by eleven of the fourteen participants, eight participants agreed the role play was an effective process for exploring the issue and nine agreed that anonymity was a key factor in their involvement and comfort. All indicated they had contributed seriously to the discussion but only five indicated feeling engaged with their role. Written comments about positive aspects varied and included: playing a role; seeing how differently others see things; seeing how role interpretation is based on culture; being in another person’s shoes; discussion; interaction; a chance to learn; debate; having fun; exploring issues; anonymity; and feedback, for example: “It was interesting to have people comment on things that you do and say, particularly things you don’t think are being transmitted!” “Ability to integrate learning, debate and fun.” Written comments about negative aspects varied and included: other participants who did not contribute seriously; not taking on roles; anxiety; time consuming; having to speak out; understanding some of the roles; and initial access problems, for example: “Those who didn’t do the ‘fun’ stuff as well as the serious stuff.” “Caused me a good deal of anxiety to participate.” Discussion The findings above raise several key issues in relation to the role play. 1. What is role play and why use it? 2. How different are face-to-face and online role play? 3. Is role play a Western game culture and does that affect role engagement? 4. How important is debriefing? What is Role Play and why use it? Crookwell, Oxford & Saunders (1987, p. 155) describe face-to-face role play as “a social or human activity in which participants “take on” or “act out” specified “roles” often within a predefined social framework or situational blueprint.” The use of face-to-face role play in education has been described as an “... attempt to understand human action and experience” (Yardley-Matwiejczuk, 1997, p. 5). Van Ments (1999, p. 9) writes “The idea of role-playing is ... to give (participants) the opportunity to practice interacting with others in certain roles.” The adoption of the role may be short and episodic, as simple as a teacher asking a student to show a class how they think another person might react to a situation, or as complex as a group of people acting out a conflict situation. Role play is simulation in that it simulates the participant’s idea of some other “real” world; but a simulation goes further by setting a system in place for the role players to operate within. In all events, role play may be described as a medium that provides an imaginary context in which issues and behaviors may be explored by participants who take on a specific role or character. How different are face-to-face and online role play? Face-to-face role play involves acting as another person through voice, gestures and actions. It involves immediate interpretation of, and reaction to, signals from others. Online role play is text-based; the writing can be done after reflection and may be edited. Written contributions may be more considered and more permanent. Obviously participants are able to utilize resources (people and materials) to prepare their contributions and can even discuss the role play with each other outside the forum. Is role play a Western game culture and does that affect role engagement? Role play, like any other teaching method, has epistemological implications. “Game culture will always reflect some complex interaction between the prior beliefs brought to the game by the participants and the scenario postulated by the simulator” (Benson, McMahon & Sinnreich, 1972, pp.439-463). A role play scenario is in reality a statement that encompasses the designer’s beliefs and cultural background. In this study, the scenario encompassed the designer’s ideas about the roles of the Press and stakeholders; university culture; the connection between self and role; and the designer’s penchant for parody. How important is debriefing? Van Ments (1999, pp.11-15) emphasizes that debriefing, where meaning is clarified and learning is underlined, is the most important aspect of face-to-face role play. Face-to-face role playing requires total immersion in the problem while the analysis of the role play requires a deliberate stepping back. Participants need the opportunity to dissociate from their roles, clear up factual errors and enter into reflective discussion. Conclusion This paper has described a case study into an asynchronous, anonymous, face-to-face role play with participants in a teaching course for academic staff conducted in a classroom setting. Most participants reported the process to be effective for learning about the topic and appreciated the anonymity of the method. Some valued the opportunity to see the issues from different perspectives. Only some participants achieved engagement with their roles which tended to be stereotypical, and levels of involvement in the activity varied. References Benson, D., McMahon, C. & Sinnreich, R. (1972). The art of scenario design. Simulation and Games, 3 (4), 439-463. Carroll, F. (1995). Toolkit for trainers: workbook of practical ideas to enable learning. Melbourne: National Staff Development Committee for VET, pp.22-30. Craig, R. L. (Ed.) (1987). Training and development handbook. New York: McGraw Hill, p.99. Crookwell, D., Oxford, R. & Saunders, D. (1987). Towards a reconceptualisation of simulation: From representation to reality. Simulation Games for Learning, 17 (4), 147-171. Eitington, J.E. (1989). The winning trainer. Houston: Gulf, pp.157-159. Freeman, M. & Capper, J.M. (1999). Exploiting the web for education: An anonymous asynchronous role simulation. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 15 (1), 95-116. Gredler, Margaret. (1994). Designing and evaluating games and simulations. Houston: Gulf, pp.62-65. Ladousse, G.P. (1987). Role play. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.110-112. McGill, I. & Beaty, L. (1995). Action learning: A guide for professional, management and educational development. New York: Kogan Page, pp.197-200. Shaw, M.E., Corsini, R. J., Blake, R.R. & Mouton, J.S. (1980). Role playing: A practical manual for group moderators. San Diego: University Associates, p.251. Turner, D. A. (1992). Roleplays: A sourcebook of activities for trainers. London: Kogan Page. Van Ments, M. (1999). The effective use of role-play. London: Kogan Page, pp.9-15. Yardley-Matwiejczuk, K. M. (1997). Role play theory and practice. London: Sage, p.5. Read More