Nominal Group Technique in Adult Education - Literature review Example

Nominal Group Technique Name: Tutor: Course: Date: Nominal Group Technique Analysis of the method Nominal Group Technique (NMG) is derived to mean ‘name only’. Its variation is structured to enable small-group discussion to attain consensus. Individuals are asked to respond to questions from the moderator where the participants can give priority to suggestions or ideas of all the members of the group. No group or a single person can dominate the discussion since all the members are encouraged to participate. The results are recommendations or prioritized solutions representing group preferences. This method can be used in test scores such as Dental Admission Test (DAT) scores when taking exercises and practice tests in preparation for the main test (Dunnette, Campbell and Jaastad, 2003). Since the method is suitable for allowing people to reach consensus, a logical model is appropriate to list some outputs which are too long and needs prioritization. The key question is listing of outputs, measuring and achieving goals. It also establishes the outputs that are least significant to attain goals and those more challenging to determine. NGT is very crucial because it allows for generation of massive ideas as compared to traditional group discussions (Gresham, 1996). The influences of individuals are balanced since the opinion makers’ power is limited. It is suitable for teenagers given that peer leaders have overstated effect on group discussions, collaborative meetings and discussion domineering leaders. Pressure and competition is diminished as it tries to conform to a status within the group. Delbecq and VandeVen (2005) argue that participants are encouraged to confront issues by way of constructive problem solving in NGT. Groups are able to democratically prioritize on ideas and offer bigger sense of closure compared to group discussion. Voting is anonymous, reduced distractions and equal participation opportunities for all group members. However, this technique requires a lot of preparation. It is highly regimented, single-topic and single-purpose meeting. In addition, this technique limits discussion since it does not allow complete idea development hence least stimulating to groups. Opinions do not necessarily converge in cross-fertilization, voting process, constrained ideas and a too mechanical process. Vedros (2009) asserts that in order to make sound decisions, Extension Educators use this tool to assists clients, staff, volunteers and consumers to improve. Critical and reflective use of Literature The technique does not allow verbal interaction hence no evaluation is made at this time. Ihuseman, Lahif, and Hatfield (2009) learns that there is less opportunity for domineering and powerful individuals to who are forced to make a contribution only if the idea is well thought out and complete. A freer climate is created taking into consideration all the dimensions of the problem. It can be seen that in any normal interacting group, participants may get involved in reacting to others ideas. Nominal Group Technique pursues originality since it is structured raising a greater proportion of ideas. The dimensions that are identified in the beginning become the obvious ones and thus the group will not go beyond them. A great breadth of ideas results from balanced participation (Hunter & Jones, 2005). For instance, in discussing the dental discourse, this technique is potential to lower problems associated with the group since is carries with it the characteristics essential for accomplishment of the goal (Tague, 2004). Participation is balanced. Witkin and Altschuld (1995) notes that Nominal group technique does not pose a threatening climate since there is no evaluation and the group does not dwell on more common aspects but forthcoming diversity of suggestions. I think that when this method is employed alongside problem solving procedures it results in greater satisfaction of participants and group productivity (George & Cowan, 2009). In medical educational program such as dental tests, curriculum evaluation is critical to define the quality of the experiences. Achievement of educational objectives and goals is determined by evaluation. Learners are satisfied from the data and feedback from evaluation. Similarly, the need for changes is identified form data obtained thus improving future learners program (Chapple & Murphy, 2006). Presentations and publications assist medical educators to disseminate educational innovations based on evaluation data and evidence. Educational programs utilize many methods like online, focus groups, paper surveys, group and individual interviews, pretests and posttests which increase learners’ attitudes, skills and knowledge. The NGT technique provides rank ordered, semi-quantitative feedback on learners perceptions regarding bad and good aspects of the educational program. Powell, Hunt and Irving (2007) notes that the course evaluation data obtained during the exercise may be different and complimentary to those found in focus groups and evaluation surveys. For instance, evaluation surveys can opinion of learners as numeric data regarding some aspects of the course given a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘poor’ to ‘excellent’. I learned that it is not the learners who generate the survey items but the course organizers. I felt that learners may miss the opportunity of commenting on issues not included in the survey items. Dobbie et al (2008) notes that focus groups motivates learners to generate evaluation issues regarding the course with small number of learners involved rather than the entire cohort. No numerical data is generated. Two or more individuals or groups holding strong opinions may direct the group discussion which is detrimental to quiet members. The authors suggest that the NGT allows for equal participation in rank ordering and generating evaluation items. They are able to identify as negative or positive the factors raised by learners. Since the whole group rank ordered opinion is captured, bad and good aspects of the course crops up. Dobbie et al (2008) also learn that learners such as faculty members or students in the department of dentistry explore positive and negative feedback with ease especially in face-to-face discussions. The faculty is able to emphasize to the participants that during face-to-face discussions, course strengths and weaknesses are equally important. The value attached to the technique when applied regularly should be based on the willingness to act and listen on the feedback from the group. Also learners can obtain suggestions that are good for improvement geared to logistic and financial impracticalities. This offers limited understanding of the subject area. Educational needs may not be optimized where learners wield strong opinions on their course preferences (Lancaster, Hart and Gardner, 2002). For instance, in the dental school, many students may describe all the activities but missing out on the face-to-face time with their patients which they regard as a ‘waste of time’. In groups they show that little is understood on the benefits of the background knowledge on physical examination and basic communication skills prior to meeting the patients (Center for Rural Studies, 2005). Reflective Insights I have learned that the Nominal Group Technique is more practical tool for course evaluation. It is capable of replacing or complimenting focus groups and learner surveys. I think that the merits are great since it produces weighted, rank-ordered and semi-quantitative data which explores on strengths and weaknesses of learners. I learned that it is able to generate both negative and positive feedback thus reducing the influence of vocal minority of learners from the strong opinionated ones on the focus group setting. I feel that the time needed to conduct the NGT exercise is much less than that of focus groups. I realized that the method is essential in evaluating established and new curricula on programs or courses. I learned that the method presents evaluation questions in a way suitable for large group of learners. It maximizes on strengths and course weaknesses as well as the suggestions for improvement. I also noticed that in the silent phase, learners can point out the course strengths and weaknesses by placing a colored stick and further commenting on an idea until it is exhausted. I felt that the method is suitable for discussion and item clarification especially for unclear items requiring edits into themes. The items and not individuals are ranked in the order of popularity (Stewart, David & Shamdasani, 2004). I learned that the technique allows the participants to vote on the basis of the popularity of the listed items from 1 to 5 with the top item ranked 5th place. I noticed that weighting on the total points is done in a rank manner which optimizes on the strengths and weaknesses of the course through small-group data gathering. I came to learn that in large group data combinations, large groups are reconvened so as to evaluate the results from the small groups. The small scores are combined and carried out with minimal discussion (Sample, 2006). I felt that cohort is convenient when ranked and weighted to reflect the strengths and weaknesses of the course before improvements are done. I also learned that large group discussions based on dominant themes are maximized when notes are recorded or taken on the rich discussions that ensue. I now appreciate that those nominal group sessions can take 30 minutes to four hours so that each session handles one principal question that is presented to the participants. I obtained that some tools are essential in conducting nominal group sessions such as masking tape, flip chart, paper, index cards, markers and pens or pencils. I noticed that when working with large groups one can assign the individual participants a group leader. I can now compare the traditional focused group approaches that this more structured technique. I have learned that everyone in the NGT has an opportunity to make a contribution in the discussion. I think that this aspect is good in preventing one person or group from dominating the discussion. I also know that large as well as small groups can utilize this technique. I noticed that one can get a sense of priority concerns which is represented among the members if this technique is well utilized. I think that the synergism obtained and experienced in the open-ended focus groups is not easily developed in this case. I also feel that some participants may feel cranky and mechanical when using this technique though the facilitator can circumvent to a greater extent by showing process flexibility and implementation. I appreciate that while there is a range in group sizes in application of nominal group technique; implementation is difficult given that it handles large audience if it is not sufficiently handled beforehand. I have learned that there are four discrete methods to conduct NGT such as generation of ideas, recording, discussion and voting. I learned that the moderator presents the questions in written form so that the group listens. Everyone is directed by the moderator to write ideas in brief (Potter, Gordon & Hamer, 2004). I learned that round-robin feedback session records each idea before it is discussed for importance and clarity. I later learned that the individuals vote in secret to prioritize the ideas. References Center for Rural Studies. (2005). Guidelines for Using the Nominal Group Technique. Boston. Chapple, M., & Murphy, R.(2006). The nominal group technique: extending the evaluation of students’ teaching and learning experience. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 21:147-59. Delbecq A.. L. & VandeVen, A. H. (2005). A Group Process Model for Problem Identification and Program Planning, Journal Of Applied Behavioral Science VII (July/August, 2001), 466 -91 and A. L. Del becq, A. H. VandeVen, and D. H. Gustafson, Group Techniques for Program Planners (Glenview, Illinois: Scott Foresman and Company, 2005). Dunham, Randall. Nominal Group Technique: A User’s Guide. University of Wisconsin. Dunnette, M. D., Campbell, J. D., and Jaastad, K. (2003). The Effect of Group Participation no Brainstoming Effectiveness for Two Industrial Samples, Journal of Applied Psychology, XLVII, 30-37. George, R., & Cowan, T. (2009). Handbook of Techniques for Formative Evaluation. FALMER/KP. 1999. Gresham, J. N. (1996). Expressed Satisfaction with the Nominal Group Technique Among Change Agents. PhD thesis, Texas A&M University, Hunter D., & Jones, J.(2005). Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 311: 376-80. Ihuseman, K., Lahif, M., and Hatfield, J. (2009). Interpersonal communication in organizations. Building Dynamic Groups. Ohio State University Extension. Lancaster, T., Hart. R., Gardner, S. (2002). Literature and medicine: evaluating a special study module using the nominal group technique. Medical Education Journal. 36:1071-6. Potter, M., Gordon, S., & Hamer, P. (2004). "The Nominal Group Technique: A useful consensus methodology in physiotherapy research", New Zealand Journal of Physiotherapy, 32(3) 126-130. Powell, A.M., Hunt, A., & Irving, A. (2007). Evaluation of courses by whole student cohorts: a case study. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 22(4):397-404. Sample, J. (2006). Nominal Group Technique: An Alternative to Brainstorming. Journal of Extension. Allan Press. New York. Stewart, A., David, W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (2004). Focus Groups: Theory and Practise. Sage Publications. Tague N. R. (2004). The Quality Toolbox, Second Edition, ASQ Quality Press, pages 364–365. Vedros,K. R. (2009). The Nominal Group Technique is a Particiatory, Planning Method In Adult Education (Ph.D. dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee) Witkin, B.R., & Altschuld, J.W. (2005). Planning and Conducting Needs Assessments: A Practical Guide. Sage Publications, Inc.   Read More