Tracy Crossley
University of Salford
t.crossley@salford.ac.uk
University of Salford s.dixon@salford.ac.uk
Exercise 11: Conflict Simulation Role-play
|
Tracy Crossley |
Steve Dixon University of Salford s.dixon@salford.ac.uk |
|
|
Rationale: |
| Suitable
for:
Academic staff or students and administrators involved with assessment. Groups of 4-7 for role-play activity. One observer per every 2 or 3 players (role-play participants). |
| Timings
95 minutes total |
| Facilitators: The workshop can be led by one facilitator but also requires one observer per 2 players to: observe the general dynamics of the group; take notes on the ‘behaviour’ of their ‘tutees’; mark their ‘tutees’ on the specified assessment criteria. |
| Resources
needed: Chairs Note paper and pens Flip charts and marker pens post-it notes |
| Running
the Workshop: Stage 1: Setting up the workshop (15 minutes) The facilitator should set the context for the workshop, explain the simulation task, divide the group into players and observers, and hand out instruction sheets to participants. This should take approximately 5 minutes so that there is sufficient time for participants to read their individual instructions and for the facilitator to deal with any questions. During the task the facilitator should also remind the group of the amount of time remaining every 10 minutes. Task: (30 minutes) Group instructions for players You have been put into a group to devise an experimental theatre piece based on the story and themes of Little Red Riding Hood. This is your first discussion meeting and you have only 30 minutes. At the end of that time you must have resolved between you the key thematic, stylistic and visual elements of the show and, if possible, have agreed some theatrical images and ‘moments’. You will be assessed and marked on the following criteria: - Effective communication - Creative contribution - Commitment to the task Whatever the instructions for your role-play character please do not ‘over-play’ your role. Remember that you want to devise a good and successful show and need to complete the task, so you may need to make some compromises (if reluctantly) particularly in the last 10 minutes. Individual instructions for players (These instructions are devised for a group of 7 players) Player A - You want to be the leader of the group. - You would like the show to be violent and sexual ‘theatre of cruelty’. - For the last 10 minutes you take a lower profile. Player B - You take everything very seriously and personally. - You would like the show to be Marxist and political. - You feel that Player C is a liability for the group and are generally dismissive of his/her ideas. Player C - You want to be the leader of the group. - You would like the show to be non-verbal, physical and sensual. - You are Player D’s best friend and always support him/her. - You take a lower profile in the first 10 minutes. Player D - You are the mediator of the group, wanting to avoid conflict and bring everyone together. - You are concerned to ensure equality and include everyone in the discussion. - You are Player C’s best friend and always support him/her. Player E - You would like the show to be highly politically correct. - You won’t speak for the first 12 minutes, then you get up and storm out of the room. After 2 minutes outside you come back in and sulk for about 3 minutes. Then you want to talk as much as possible for the next 5 minutes, suggesting your ideas and giving your opinions of the ones you’ve heard. - You feel that Player C is a liability for the group and are generally dismissive of his/her ideas. Player F - You are generally negative and like to question everything. - You have few if any ideas of your own. - You feel that Player C is a liability for the group and are generally dismissive of his/her ideas. - You take a lower profile in the middle 10 minutes. Player G - You are the joker in the group, wanting to make others laugh. - You do not take the project very seriously or have many ideas. - You are secretly in love with Player B - You dislike Player A Instructions for observers Observers should also be handed individual guidance sheets which, in addition to the task instructions and assessment criteria, contain the names of their ‘tutees’ and the following information: Please make notes in relation to the following: - What conflicts and alliances begin to form during the discussion; are your tutees behaving co-operatively or obstructively ? - Are there any changes in the group dynamics during the discussion; e.g. are any initial conflicts between people/ideas later resolved? How do these resolutions come about? - Do any of the conflicts or disagreements lead to any constructive decisions and/or creative ideas? - Grade your selected tutees in marks out of 100 on each area of the assessment criteria. Stage 2 – Assessing/marking (observers), reflection (players): (10 minutes) During this section of the exercise, the facilitator should instruct the participants to remain silent and refrain from speaking to one another. The observers are instructed to mark their players, during which time the players are asked to individually reflect on their group-work experience and make notes for the later feedback session (if a second room is available, it may be useful to split the players and observers during this section). Observer feedback/marks, player feedback/reflection (40 minutes) The group reconvene and, in turn, each player receives oral feedback and grades from their observer/assessor, which is focused around the assessment criteria and points specified on the observer instruction handouts. The observers are also asked to explain how they have interpreted the assessment criteria in relation to their judgment of each tutee’s ‘performance’ in the discussion. After receiving their marks and feedback, the players are asked to feedback their individual/personal reflections on the group-work experience. Players should be asked to consider any difficulties or conflicts of interest they encountered in working to achieve the task whilst remaining ‘in-character’. They should also be asked to respond to the assessment process itself; i.e. their understanding of the assessment criteria and the method in which they received marks/feedback from the observers/assessors. It is hoped that the feedback and reflections from this session will open up some fruitful questions around group conflict and assessment modes/criteria, which will be explored in the second session of the workshop. |
| Guidance
notes and recommendations:
To help create a non-threatening environment for the exploration of group conflict in this workshop, it is important that it is made clear to participants (particularly if participants are students) that the feedback and marks given are related solely to their role-play character’s contribution to and achievement of the task, and not to their ‘performance’ of the character. Therefore, it is vital that observers/assessors are not aware of the specific roles their ‘tutees’ are playing until after the marking section of the exercise is completed. This should help the observers to remain focused on the task objective and assessment criteria rather than on how effectively or not the players have performed their role-play character. |
| Variations: The ‘characters’ devised for the simulation exercise are just some of the possible roles that might be used. The characters can be altered or substituted with different characters as required. The number of roles can also be reduced to suit smaller group sizes. However, it is not recommended to increase the numbers to more than 7 as it will be difficult for all players to contribute sufficiently, and increasingly difficult to untangle group dynamics as the size increases. |
| Bibliography: Adair, J. (1987). Effective Teambuilding. London: Pan Books Boud, D. (1995). Assessment and Learning: Complementary or Contradictory, in Knight, P (Ed). Assessment for Learning in Higher Education. London: Kogan Page in association with SEDA Bourner, J. Hughes, M. & Bourner, T. (2001). First Year Undergraduate Experiences of Group Project Work. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol 26. No 1 Gibbs, G. (1995). Learning in Teams: A Tutor Guide. Oxford Centre for Staff Development Grian, C. (2002). ‘Process-Focused Learning. (Online). Available from URL <www.cruxconsulting.org/procweb/poc2.html>. (Accessed 12:08:02) Hughes, D. (1996) Collaboration: Process or Product, Means or End, Democracy or Demagogy? Performing Arts International, Vol. 1, part 1, Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers Jacques, D. (1991). Learning in Groups (second edition). London: Kogan Page Johnson, D, W & Johnson, F, P. (1994). Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills. London: Allyn & Baco |
Tracy Crossley
Steve Dixon
University of Salford
FDTL - Assessing Group Practice
First delivered 23.01.2003