Life inside a virtual team: Communication, language and culture

I have had the opportunity to work in or observe countless virtual teams over the past 15 years. From the military, an online degree program and my in-company work, it is clear that virtual team communication is a critical component of success in international organizations.

Over the past two years, I have largely specialized my training to deal with the unique challenges virtual teams face.

So let's look at a few of the key factors which support or hinder communication in virtual teams.

1.  Technical Skills

The members of a virtual team must master a range of technical applications to communicate effectively. Often this is taken for granted and the team members have only a superficial knowledge of communication tools.  Additionally, team members tend to rely on communication methods they use to enhance face-to-face communication in the local workplace (dear email, I am talking about you).

Here are some examples of technical skills which can support better virtual communication. But of course, this is not all.

• Use all the tools in virtual meeting software (and no, companies do not use Skype).
• Create PowerPoint slides which are designed to be read and not presented. This includes things like inserting documents and objects into slides, drastically changing formatting, etc.
• Create and manage an organized document library, including naming standards, types, searchability, etc.
• Use graphics tools like MS Visio to create diagrams (preferably those linked to data).
• Troubleshoot and diagnose technical issues like bandwidth limitations, audio and video problems, etc.
• Create and maintain a team website/portal in applications like SharePoint or SalesForce
• Use the complete functionality of Outlook

2.  Communication Channels

Understanding communication channels within organizations has always been an important part of collaboration and communication in teams, but it is especially important in virtual groups. I notice that virtual team members and managers do not completely understand the communication channels within their organization or how to change them.

Employees talk about long (or non-existent) feedback loops quite often without understanding the communication exact 'workflow'. Virtual team members typically complain about lack of information without seeing the number of stops between the origin of the information and their location in the social network.

A lack of understanding of how information flows through the team leads to unnecessary and unproductive meetings, massive communication overhead among network nodes, and a lack of information transparency among the team. The result is often redundant work and even unproductive affective conflicts between team members.

3.  Stages of Team Development and Team Dynamics

Many managers these days are trained in team building and educated in how teams change over time.  But in reality I see a couple of things happening. First, virtual groups evolve into teams and aren't expressly formed. For example, a team in India begins as an 'internal supplier' for a team in the US. The Americans send clearly defined workpackages to the Indians, which are then completed and sent back as deliverables. But over time, the two groups start working more closely together and eventually collaborate on a new product innovation jointly. The result is a team. The manager and the team members likely didn't even feel the change because it happened gradually and we cannot point to specific formation.

Second, managers attempt to copy team development strategies from their co-located teams in the past. They organize kick-offs and team building activities. They create team rituals and talk a lot about values and mindset. This is valuable of course, but virtual team development faces some unique challenges the managers and members are unprepared for. Especially in building trust, the written word of email leaves a lot of space for misinterpretation and I see that virtual teams move a slower through Tuckman's stages than co-located colleagues.

4.  Culture

Everybody likes talking about culture these days and I can see why. After all, you can explain nearly any misunderstanding or awkward moment simply by saying, "It must be the culture." But let's take a step back here for a moment and look at this sentence for the cop out it really is. From my observation, nearly all misunderstanding and awkward moments are caused by something other than culture.

• Okay, so he didn't respond to you email. - Not culture, he's busy and you're not a priority.
• She always goes off on a tangent. - Guess what... she does that with everyone.  Not culture.
• They are always very direct. - Well, they are working in a second language and the meeting is only 30 minutes long. They are trying to avoid a misunderstanding and get things done. Not culture (well, okay some might say there is some culture here).

Now, I am not saying that culture does not play a role in virtual teams. I am sure it does, but let's not place the culture label on everything. One problem with culture is the national culture idea. Research like Hofstede and Trompenaars is based on huge sample sizes to draw conclusions about values, tendencies and behaviors. But in virtual teams we are talking about individuals with distinct backgrounds, goals and personalities.

My clients don't need to know how to convince 'Germans', they need to know how to convince Anja, Thomas and Hans. I'm not advocating the abolition of country-specific culture training, but it should certainly include a large warning label, "Some or all of this may not apply to the person you are talking to. If in doubt, get to know the person." Character assumptions are the fastest way to make someone not like you.

There is another aspect of culture which plays a role: company culture. Employees are sick of hearing about it because I think every company in the world is trying to refine it, change it or implement it. They are largely numb to the whole topic, but there is a certain 'way of doing things' in companies and departments. Organizations have values, methods and rituals. If you want to improve communication in a virtual team, it might be helpful to look at how it works in the local offices, not a generalization about the whole country. (I have been guilty of this in the past... lesson learned.)

5.  Communication Norms

Building on points 2, 3 and 4, we come to communication norms.  Communication norms consist of agreements on channels, methods and formats. At the lowest level we are talking about terminology. At an organizational level we are talking about the project communication plan. Somewhere in between we look at things like slide templates, forms, collaborative document set up, standards for correspondence, meeting agendas, etc.

The local team members come into a virtual team with certain communication norms like how they report information, what meetings look like, etc.. Often, these norms are incompatible and virtual teams need to compromise their norms. At a low level, we may agree (explicitly or implicitly) on certain vocabulary and terms. At a larger level, the group may agree on norms for meeting presentations (e.g. no more than 10 minutes).

The point is that norms will emerge. The key is making sure they are appropriate for the group. One type of meeting agenda may work great in a face-to-face setting, but fall flat when we have a large virtual meeting.  That report structure may be perfect for stimulating discussion at the home office, but might not include enough information to be shared to a distributed team.

I see that managers and employees take norms for granted and several things happen.

• The team does not discuss the norms, which results in ambiguity (no meta-communication)
• The team adopts norms from one location which are ineffective (e.g. bad meeting styles are copied into the virtual team)
• The team adopts norms which do not fit the communication tools and methods
• Team members and managers do not hold others accountable when they violate the norms (e.g. no one says anything when the presenter takes too long)

6.  Language

This is typically the default diagnosis (along with culture) for why many virtual teams are underperforming. And managers and team members are not completely wrong. Communication in a second language takes more time and effort than in a first language. Meetings are longer or cover less content. Proper understanding often takes more repetition (either synchronously or via follow up correspondence). Writing takes longer, including emails, reports, documentation, etc. But where there is the will and need to communicate an idea, there is a way. Teams make it work, but it is frustrating and puts pressure on their already busy schedule. After all, project schedules and team goals are set on the assumption that worker efficiency is constant.

The magic level seems to be around B1-B2. Team members who are lower than B1 cost the team efficiency and time. Due to poor comprehension, meetings have to be slower and the communication overhead is higher for repetition and follow up. On the other side, the team suffers from their inability to contribute effectively - costing time and energy. Notice, I am talking about the communication workload on the whole team, not just the low-level speaker.

At B1 or B2, the team is generally able to coordinate action effectively if the right norms, channels and strategies are used to accommodate the distributed team set up and language burden. Groups of workers at this level are able to achieve L1-like efficiency under the right conditions. Team members in the B2-C1 levels are instrumental in helping to set up these norms. These are the team members who are best suited for moderating discussions and chairing meetings.

If there are team members above C1 or native speakers in the group, the challenge changes. As many have mentioned, the ability of high-level/native speakers to adapt to ELF is crucial. In my experience, learners come with ELF and it is not something I train. Their English has been formed by their exposure prior to the training. My job then is so simply formalize ELF as a standard and get everyone speaking the same 'English'. If left 'untuned' to ELF, high-level speakers cause higher communication overhead and actually hurt the team's efficiency. With the natural belief among language learners that greater proficiency means greater communicative skill, the realization that they are actually causing problems can be a real eye-opener.

Conclusion

I have highlighted six aspects to communication in the virtual team environment. Many Business English Trainers will be focused on the language aspect because they either do not have access to the inner workings of the organization or their mandate does not include broader communication issues. But I suspect that many trainers are willing to expand their 'English teacher' role if they see the opportunity to deliver added value or help solve the real communication barriers of the company.

My advice is that training experts enhance their skill set to stay one step ahead of clients in virtual team communication. This includes obtaining the technical know-how, matching reality with organizational theory, revisiting the field of communications and expanding their approach to language in the workplace. Clients will be extremely grateful for you ability to deliver greater efficiency and project success.

Logic puzzle activity for summarizing and clarifying

I regularly remind my learners to continuously summarize and ask clarification questions in L2.  During my observations of meetings, I often see cases of miscommunication which could have been avoided by a simple timeout to summarize and check that everyone has the same understanding.  In fact, if there is one communication skill needed to work effectively in L2, this is it.

But sadly, I have always had some trouble designing activities which forced the participants to use checking, clarifying and summarizing.  Luckily, I found one in the The Big Book of Conflict Resolution Games by Mary Scannell.

Basic procedure

Find a logic puzzle with 15-20 clues.  Cut up the clues and deal them to the participants.  They have to solve the puzzle without showing the others their clues.  Time: approx. 40 min for a group of four.

If you aren't sure what a logic puzzle is, it is a paper game in which you have to find certain combinations using clues.  For example, 5 friends went to a restaurant, each person ate a different dish, drank a different drink and paid a different amount.  One clue might be, "Janet did not have the cheeseburger and paid more than Frank."

What happens

The group will probably first try to collect all the variables (the names, the dishes, etc.).  Then they start reading the clues.  In some groups each person reads all their clues in sequences, while in others (the more effective ones) they take turns reading clues that are relevant to the current discussion.  They are continually asking to repeat, checking and summarizing.  The trainer can collect and add phrases throughout the activity.  Additionally, they use great language to keep the others on track in the discussion.

Training aids

I don't allow my groups to use any visual aids... no shared notes, no whiteboard, no cards with the variables, nothing.  Each person can use their notebook to make personal notes, but cannot share it with others.  I find that this makes it more challenging and forces the participants to use verbal communication.  I suspect that visual aids would make the puzzle easier to solve, but would require less language.  Second, my engineers discuss complicated, interlocking problems all the time and I find that it more or less recreates this complexity.

The larger question of feedback...

This brings me to the larger question of feedback and how to train it.  After all, summarizing and checking are the purest forms of feedback, but depend on the listener.  Surprisingly, while I find that summarizing and checking are the linguistic functions most often missing from discussions, the lack of feedback is the most common observation my participants make about their own discussions.

Here's why... asking for feedback is delicate and often ineffective.

I think we all know about open and closed questions.  And I think we can all agree that closed questions for checking understanding are not as effective.  In my experience, "Did you understand?" is pretty much worthless.  Second, I think we can agree that while a backbrief ("Please tell me what I said.") is highly effective, it is only realistic in highly direct discourse communities.  In the workplace, there is too much chance for a loss of face.

So, I prefer to help my participants draft a series of open checking questions for them to use in discussions.  In essence, it is teaching them the same skill we use as trainers for comprehension questions.  These are higher order questions which demonstrate understanding.

Examples:

• What have we forgotten to consider with this plan?
• How do you think this will affect ______?
• How does this compare to ________?
• What kind of experience do you have with this?
• What do you think are the next steps?
• What problems do you think we might have?

For more structured practice, creating these types of questions for a presentation works nicely... then try to add them into spontaneous discussion.

So, I am happy with the results from the logic puzzle activity to generate a true need for clarification, checking and summarizing but it doesn't solve everything.  The more difficult step is to train effective methods for requesting feedback.  Once the participants have it though, they notice a clear difference in their discussions and meetings.

Widening the Feedback Channel

Let's talk about feedback.  Without question, Business English Trainers are dedicated to feedback.  We understand it as a valuable part of the communication process.  We attempt to instill it in our learners by giving then useful phrases for obtaining/giving feedback as well as the benefits.  In many cases, our lessons are largely feedback driven.  We observe the language and interject to provide linguistic input for clarity, style, and meaning.  Giving effective feedback is one of the crucial elements of being an English Teacher.

Sometimes we distill this skill to 'error correction', but any trainer can tell you that feedback is much more than simply 'mistake hunting'.  I see that I have not blogged about the '4 Levels of Listening'; perhaps I can do it soon.  In the meantime, you can look at a professional development workshop I ran last year which mentions the topic.

Surprisingly, what I see is that trainers are quick to preach feedback and reluctant to take it.  This is understandable.  Easy to say, harder to do.  Negative feedback hurts.  After all, we have worked for hours to do our best only to find out that our effort was wasted.  What an insult!

But I follow the words, "Feedback is a gift."  As I move forward with a few long-term projects, widening the feedback channel is vital for helping me design and refine engaging and productive lessons.  I have learned to crave negative feedback and integrate it every step of the way.  Honestly, positive feedback is less important to me because I walk into most lessons thinking that the agenda is truly engaging, helpful, and worthwhile.

Here are a few methods for obtaining valuable feedback.

Feedback Trading

At the end of a lesson, say that you will give feedback on their performance if they give you the same.  Typically this is written and often involves a structure.  For example:

I will give you three focus areas for you to work on in English communication.  You give me three things I should do as a trainer to meet your expectations.

This takes about 15 minutes and with larger classes some preparation may be needed.

Flip chart - keep/change

Draw a t-line on the flip chart.  On the left side write "keep" and on the right "change".  Ask the learners to tell you what elements of the training we should keep and what elements we should change.

For example, in my recent classes I have found that they want to keep the variety of the lessons and the feedback-based instruction.  However, they would like to read more articles and play Taboo.  No problem... I introduced more reading/internet searching into the class and we play Taboo for 30 minutes once a month (I bought the real UK version on Amazon).  Attendance is higher than before.

Meet one-to-one

To be honest, this is most difficult method of feedback.  First, learners do not like to tell the trainer bad things.  Maybe they do not have the learning experience to even make a comment.  Second, it lacks the anonymity of written feedback.  Third, they are unaware of their peers' expectations of the course and hesitant to impose their demands on the group.

However, when handled properly, individual meetings can provide key insights into what is going right and wrong with a course.  These are particularly valuable after an extensive time with the group (when they know the group dynamics).  The key for the trainer is implementation with confidentiality.  In other words, when you change something, make it look like a pedagogical idea.

-  Learner desires a traditional and structured approach to learning
-  Trainer: "I know we don't normally do gap-fills, but research show that they are useful for remembering vocabulary.  Here is a gap-fill I created, you have five minutes to complete it."

Important:  When you receive negative feedback, do not attempt to justify your actions... just take it.  Stand there, nod your head, and take it.  It hurts sometimes.  You can direct the conversation to another person, "Jim, what do you think?" but you should not answer.  Write it down and think about it.

Colleague status

This is clearly limited to certain courses and special environments.  But this is the goal of every group I teach whether in one department or from diverse groups.  I want to build trust to the point that we can talk openly about every element of the training (and the business).  The colleague status is developed by combining the three in-class methods mentioned above plus regular communication, dedication, and common goals.

The hardest part of my job is convincing them that my satisfaction comes from watching them succeed (in fact, the most student I lose are those without goals).  I truly believe that if your inspiration is entirely self-serving, then you will never be able to deliver the service needed to maximize value added.  But this convincing takes time.  It is not an approach they are used to.

This means regular engagement with the learners to find out their problems, help them through them within the business constraints, provide accurate input at the time of need, etc.  In essence, value comes from being an integral part of their work life.  Running off copies and preaching about the Present Perfect Continuous does not normally do it.

Once feedback is constant in both directions, you will find the the glass doors to the person/business open wide and lead to immense value added.

Conclusion

While I have discussed three feedback techniques, the final element of colleague status is truly the pinnacle of excellent training and customer service.  The first step is that we seek, accept, and finally crave feedback from our learners in the same way they desire it from us.  It can change the entire dynamic of a class or project and considerably impact contract renewal and wages.

Linguistics Theory and Real World Training

I am not a linguist.  Most of what I have learned about the field comes from the Wikipedia Linguistics section and observation both in class and in the real world.  I'm always impressed by trainers and academics who work in the various subfields like Pragmatics or Phonology.  Without question, I owe much to their research and effort.  The depth of their analysis is simply breathtaking.

Nor am I an expert in Second Language Acquisition.  My initial education in SLA was simply by critically reading course books and asking, "Why did they write it this way?"  Now, I rely on Scott Thornbury for this, as I suspect many front-line teachers do.  My initial goal was to simply understand what he was talking about.  The real gold mine of knowledge is not his A-Z blog, but rather his list of written works.

All too often, it takes considerable trailblazing to link these theories to the reality of my learners.  The enhanced analysis produced by academia is often so detailed we can miss the forest for the trees.  We are now mapping collocations across two centuries (BYU/Google Books) and assessing the pragmatic meaning of utterances with conceptual nouns at such a minute level it leaves the trainer lost for clear guidance.  We are even left trying to define methodologies across a spectrum of distant names like Krashen and Lozanov.  Lives are spent specializing in these fields.

But as Business English trainers we cannot turn our backs on this range of knowledge.  The other extreme is just as fruitless.  There is a pull on our community to become experts in the "skills" such as negotiations, intercultural communication, and presentations.  This is a louder and more public group of experts.  There is a shine to these practitioners and perhaps more money.  But this is not my role either.  I believe our purpose is to link these two fields.

Furthermore, our knowledge base needs to be broad enough in both areas to identify the correct communication tool.  Sometimes it is skills, sometimes it is linguistic.  One thing is for sure, we cannot expect linguistic experts (e.g. published course books) to give us everything we need to know about skills and we should not trust skills experts to provide linguistic expertise.

Here are two examples of how this works...

Skills Problem

A participant in one of my courses recently asked me to help him with a problem with an American colleague.  He wanted a sentence he could say to show that he was offering help.  The colleague in the US always reacted unexpectedly.  Defensive would be too strong of a word, but he always seemed uncomfortable with the offer and rejected it immediately.  The learner here in Germany thought he had said something wrong and he had somehow offended his colleague.  The American would never accept his assistance and he wanted me to give him a sentence to make it better.

But this was not a linguistic problem.  The problem was instead with the team dynamic and the difference in organizational culture between the German and US departments (notice here it was not national culture). I sent the following email and we had a meeting to discuss the issue.  By the end of the meeting we had worked down to sentence level.

Unfortunately, there is no ‘silver bullet’ for this type of reaction.  Instead, it appears that the relationship is not the best.  His response to offering help is only a symptom of the real problem.  The question is then... what is the real problem?

To start, I would need more information to help define the issue.  Then we can formulate a strategy for dealing with this person and identify language which would resonate with him.

So here are some questions and feedback:

Trust is built on character and competence.  Do you believe he is competent?  If not, why?  What do you think about his character?  What does he think about his own competence?  Is he new in his position or field?  Is he stressed from the expectations of the job?  What does he think of your competence and character?  How can you tell that he feels that way?  Do you trust him?  Does he know you trust him?

Team building is not easy and goes through phases.  How long have you worked together?  Do the team members really know each other?  Does the team have a common purpose and result?  Does everyone know it?  Are the members committed to the team or are there other priorities?  What are they?  What is the definition for success for your team?  Does your team have a track record of successes?  Is there a reward for success?  Does your team accept and use conflict as creative/critical thinking?  How do you and your colleague fit into this team?  Do you have roles?  Did the boss give you those roles or did they evolve?

Everyone has goals and motivation.  What are his goals?  (e.g. Is he trying to prove himself to the team?  Does he want a promotion?)  What does he think your goals are?  Why?

Everyone has assumptions.  What does he think about the department in Germany?  What does he think about working with Germans?  Why?  Based on those assumptions, is he positive, negative, or neutral about working with your team?  What are his assumptions about you?  Why?  What are your assumptions about him?  Does he feel them?

Everyone has pride.  Clearly, you are proud of your children.  You talked about them on the first day we met.  You are also proud of your intelligence (and you should be).  You seem to enjoy the mentor role.  Do you want to mentor him?  What is he proud of?  Why?

You don’t have to answer these questions in an email, we can discuss it.  But I would like you to think about these questions.  When we have an answer to these questions then we can work down to sentence level.

So, I hope we can work together on this and develop a solution.

By the end of the meeting we had identified several team and trust issues and dealt with ways to handle them.  We also discussed the word "just" with the continuous form to show intent.  To give this type of training we need to know about trust, team building, working in virtual teams, and the effect of personal goals on communication.

Linguistic Problem

Most of my learners are using English in virtual meetings with native speakers, India, and China.  Their biggest concern is comprehension.  In this case the problem has less to do with the set phrases in the meeting or even running effective meetings.  The answer here is in pronunciation and phonology.  To help ease the communication problem I laid out a plan to tackle accents and connected speech.  The group is B1 and they are within a comfortable discourse community and lexical set.

Step one was to introduce sentence stress and reduction in connected speech among native speakers.  Then I could approach syllable-timed and stress-timed languages.  Additionally, I could dive into Learner English to identify certain phonemes which might be causing problems.  Mixed with a healthy dose of authentic listening, we might just be able to crack this nut.

The plan got off to a rocky start.  I started with reviewing the pronunciation of weak auxiliaries and short forms.  This was okay, but when I took it a step further and showed them "h" dropping, they were resistant.  In fact, there was nearly outright revolt in the class as suddenly they believed that I was teaching them some laughable dialect of American English.  One woman went so far to say, "No, no... this is not right.  My British supplier speaks a very good English.  He does not do this."  But I know this exists!  Mark Hancock and Sylvie Donna said so!  And I have heard it often first hand.

Clearly more research on my part was necessary.  In the end I found the answer by digging deep into the linguistic research world.  It turns out that the answer is in German, not English.  In Modern German Pronunciation, Christoper Hall points out that reduction and assimilation is common in everyday German (which I knew from my own problems in my second language) but that it is also rarely used in formal contexts.  He states,

"English weak forms are dictated entirely by the stress and rhythm of the sentence and are completely unconnected with differences in style, in other words, weak forms in English are used even in very formal speech. ... The use of German weak forms, on the other hand, depends decisively on the pronunciation style... The general rule is that in formal pronunciation weak forms are less frequent..." (p 154)

So, here was the key to unlocking the comprehension issues in the virtual meetings.  First, I had to show them that weak forms do not affect image as in German.  Then we could deal with sentence stress.  Then the plan could continue.

These two examples show how our profession is not a one-or-the-other field.  Instead it is a balance between the two.  To fulfill our role and expectations, we must be able to balance these two influences.  If we feel ourselves uncomfortable within the skills area or relying too heavily on course book 'expertise' we need to improve our business communication competence and relevance.  On the other hand, if we find ourselves drifting too far into the flashy world of TED talks and intercultural negotiations, we need to pull back and rediscover our linguistic roots.  Striking the right balance is not easy for me, but my learners benefit greatly when I get it right.   

Easter for Engineers

I work with many engineers:  software, mechanical, and electrical.  It is truly an honor to work with them and watch them tackle challenges.  They have a distinct approach and they love attacking problems.  Never do they throw up their hands and say, "I don't know!" or give up on a challenge.

So, for today's lesson I decided to try a fun event to really get them talking and working.  On Dave's ESL Cafe, he has a lesson plan called "Protect your egg" and I thought it was perfect for Easter.  It appears the lesson is originally from the book Business English Recipes by Judy Irgoin.  Sadly, the book is not available digitally so I haven't reviewed it.

The basic lesson is simple.  Pairs are given string, tape, two balloons, two pieces of A4 paper, and a raw egg.  The task is to construct a device which protects the egg when dropped from arms length.  The only rule is that the egg must fall freely and cannot be lowered to the ground with the string.

For the A2 learners we started by looking at phrases for making and responding to suggestions.  For the B1 group, the support was eliciting and boarding phrases beforehand.  For the B1+ and B2 learners, they were not allowed to use the word "I".  For the weaker group I helped them with a few phrases, nothing amazing... just as reference for during the activity...

Perhaps we could...
We might be able to...
It seems/appears that...
How about -ing...
One idea is to...
What if we [past]...?

Then they were off to the races.  I stepped back and let them at it, assisting only with slight corrections and unobtrusively boarding lexical gaps.  In one group, I called a short timeout during the planning/building to replace the word "fix" with better options like "attach", "secure", "stabilize", etc.

Here is the winning design from the day...

The egg was suspended with strings in the center of the tetrahedron.  The bars are made of rolled paper.  In total, we dropped nine eggs.  Four did not survive the fall intact and we broke two during construction... bring paper towels.

An added benefit of the lesson was that it has helped draw the students to their new course site.  I have spent considerable time building material and creating the website.  Of course, adoption takes time.  To pull interest, I took pictures of the them holding their designs and then posted a recap of all the projects at the end of the day.  They were intensely curious and nearly everyone logged in within an hour of sending the email notification that it was uploaded.  For many, this was their first login to the site.

Also, the restriction on the stronger groups by outlawing the word "I" was outstanding.  It eliminated the "I think, --- Well, I think" exchanges.  Afterwards, we discussed how avoiding "I" generated more ideas and dialog because the suggestions were no longer personal property.

So, a wonderful day with lots of laughs and great language.  Thanks to Judy Irgoin and Dave's ESL Cafe for creating and sharing this lesson for my engineers.  Have a Happy Easter!

PS - My apologies for the blog slow down.  I am working on a large CPD project for BE Trainers I hope you will enjoy... more to follow.

Four Groups... One Long Lesson

A few weeks ago I held a live session on needs analysis for the EVO Designed for Business course.  The course is designed and moderated by some of the most talented trainers I've ever met and it was an honor to be involved.

During the live session, I talked about a common technique I use when the needs of the learner aren't necessarily aligned with what the organization would like to see in the training.  To facilitate both I simply change the context of the task, but not the task itself.  This is nothing new; course books do it all the time.  For example, instead of making arrangements for a business meeting... we make arrangements for a barbeque.  The learners get the 'break from work' so many are looking for, and they are still learning the language and skills needed in their jobs.

However, because I almost never use course books, I instead look for simple things in the learners' lives to exploit for skills practice in the classroom.  During the live session I gave the example of the May Tree, a tradition here in Bavaria.  You can find the live session recording here.

To follow up, I'd like to give an example of how this is scalable to various classes.  In this example, I have taken a different point of view on task based learning.  Instead of one class completing the task over several lessons, various classes work on the task in sequence to complete the overall project.

Lesson Plan:  The Glühwein Stand (Mulled Wine Stand)

Class 1 - Intermediate, 6 Students, 60 min
Objective - Proposing ideas, giving justification, describing purpose, agree / disagree

I explained the task that today we would plan a glühwein stand for the city christmas market (this class was in early December).  The profits would go to charity.  Each class throughout the day would use the work from the class before to take the next step.  For this group, the task was to identify all of the resources needed to start the stand.




Source:  eltpics, @jeeves_ http://www.flickr.com/photos/eltpics/8197827162

The learners were all given stacks of note cards and told to brainstorm all the things they need.  Write each resource on a different card.  Then they created an affinity diagram in the middle of the table and assigned the resources a catergory name like "Equipment", "Staff", "Materials", "Documentation", etc.

Throughout the lesson, I offered feedback, injected useful phrases, highlighted vocabulary, etc.

Class 2 - Upper Intermediate, 3 Students, 60 min
Objectives - Clarifying, vocabulary for regulations, collocations, syntax, and brevity

At the start of the lesson I gave the group the stack of note cards from the previous group and asked them to 'recreate' the affinity diagram.  The group asked me questions to clarify what the cards meant and the categories.  I recorded and added clarifying phrases on the board.

I then told them to focus on the legal aspects of the stand.  What authorizations would be need?  They researched the information (in German) on the web and had to explain it in English (a common task in their work).  On two websites, I asked them to translate particularly complex sentences, identify collocations, and condense sentences.

Their final task was to create a list of steps to be completed in order to get city approval for the stand.

Class 3 - Pre-Intermediate, 6 Students, 60 min
Objectives - Asking for opinions, stating opinions, saying numbers, talking about budgets

The lesson fit perfectly with the previous lessons in that we has just practiced numbers and talking about costs.  This group was given the note cards from Class 1 and given the task to create a budget for all the resources.  How much do the cups cost?  How much does it cost to rent / buy a stand?  Etc.  Feedback... naturally.

By the end of the lesson they had a catergorized budget on A4 paper.  I ran to the copy machine for the next lesson.

Class 4 - Intermediate, 7 Students, 60 min
Objectives - reach an agreement, discussion options, formal emails for assistance

Finally, each student in the last class was given a copy of the proposed budget from the lesson before.  Their job was to create a profit projection and determine how they could make the most money.  The charity wanted to know how much in donations they should expect before approving the project.  I turned over the white board to one of the learners and got out of the way.  During the discussion they decided that the best way to save money was to ask for volunteers and donations of equipment.  They made a profit calculation and make a list of people / organizations to contact for support.

A natural follow up task was for them to actually write the emails for support.  Each student was given a different contact person and they had to request a donation for the stand (equipment, volunteer support, etc.) or authorization from the charity and government (from Class 2).

By the end of the day I was able to write an email to all of the students and tell them how much money we would donate as a result of their work.  The feedback was great and several suggested that we acutally make it a reality.  I guess that would have to be another lesson.

They used the functional language needed in their work, but the context was something taken from their personal lives.  Combined with doses of feedback... the lessons were very student led and had minimal teacher talking time.

How to Create a Great E-Learning Environment

After having taken a nice long vacation from email, the Internet, Twitter, and my blog, I am feeling recharged and ready to start 2013!  It is clear for me that 2013 will be a year of growth in e-learning and managing training virtually.  So I thought I would start by recording what I have learned so far.

For those who do not know, I never finished my university diploma.  I dropped out of college due to financial constraints and "other pursuits" in 2001 and it has haunted me ever since.  So in 2010 I restarted my journey toward societal acceptance by enrolling in online study from the University of Maryland to obtain my BS in Marketing.  Over the past two years I have seen all sorts of teaching, moderation, tasks, and so on from the professors of the university.  Combined with my limited experience in conducting training online, I'd like to share...

Best Practice in Online Learning or How to manage an asynchronous online conversation...

1.  Start off with a general introduction

One of the over-arching themes of adult online learning is that the participants place their daily lives on hold during the course.  They are extremely interested in really getting to know the other people in class and friendships come naturally.  Therefore, it is best to leave the personal introduction task as general as possible.  In fact, the wording, "Post an introduction of yourself," is typically sufficient to build a proper collaborative network.  This type of task will truly encourage the learners to read and remember the posts of their peers.

2.  Reduce teacher talking time

Teachers should moderate the discussion as little as possible.  Remember, the key aspect of online learning is that the learners "find their own path".  Any guidance, correction, or feedback will only disrupt that process.  Besides, feedback is generally best when withheld until grading an assignment.

Additionally, because the participants are reading all of the other posts there is no need to refer to the opinions of other class members.  Saying things like, "Interesting point of view, but I think Jenny might disagree," is simply a waste of time.  The learners will have already read the post and in fact are probably already preparing a response.  The same is true for links to additional material.  One characteristic of adult learners is that they are only interested in learning the material provided in the course.  Optional links and 'for more information' resources are seen as disruptive.

3.  Set rules about how often and when posts must be written

The real value of an online forum is the number of posts the class can write.  This shows real collaboration.  The quality of the ideas is only secondary.  Therefore, your learners will truly benefit from rules like, "Post your response by Tuesday, one reply to another classmate by Friday, and two more replies by Sunday."  These rules ensure that ideas are spread and that everyone is getting the most from the discussion.  Furthermore, it will help the learners manage their lives better and assist them in prioritizing their tasks.

4.  Focus on the theory

Adult learners are fascinated by theoretical learning.  In surveys, most respondents say what they enjoy most is reflecting on theoretical tasks and coming up with ways to apply them to their real world situations.  By providing practical tips and applications, the teacher is only robbing the learners of this opportunity.

5.  Rewards and praise often fall flat in adult courses

It is a universally accepted truth that only children respond well to praise and reward for positive effort and results.  For adult learners the reward is the course itself (and naturally any certification).  Therefore, providing positive comments to good ideas or dedication to the group should be minimized.  The learners will undoubtedly find it condescending and resent the trainer.  Along with this, competitions and games should be removed completely from the adult online training environment because it will only cause further demotivation.

6. Keep tasks open ended

When giving instructions, remember to keep them as general as possible.  Use vague verbs like discuss, reply, and consider because these will yield the best results for online discussion.  Also, because adult learners are continually focused on achieving the learning objectives, there is no need to inform them of the purpose behind the individual tasks.  The extensive introduction document you send at the beginning of the course will be read with vigour and the learners will clearly see how everything fits together.  Giving a purpose is simply redundant.

7.  Summarize activities are the best

Perhaps the best online discussion activity is to ask the learners to summarize a document, chapter, website, etc.  The most effective way to generate differences of opinion is to have 30 responses which all say the same thing.  The students will discuss continuously about why and how one summary is different than others.

So those are my lessons learned for effective e-learning.  Happy moderation and I hope you have a great new year!

Group Stages and Reaching Training Objectives

In this post I want to examine how group dynamics affect performance objectives and the implications on syllabus development.  For the past few weeks, I have been searching my university database for applicable research on the subject in TESOL and general adult education.  While the results are clear that collaborative learning benefits training, I have been unable to find references to show how group development impacts results (except in e-learning).  If you are aware of research please let me know.  I’m sure some of the books I see on the MA TESOL reading list must include this subject.

The stages of group development have remained relatively intact since Tuckman’s forming, storming, norming, performing, adjourning framework in 1965.  To this, we’ll add Lencioni’s Five Dysfunctions of a Team, a bestseller now prevalent in management training.  While nearly 50 years apart, these two structures are aligned.  In fact, Lencioni’s dysfunctions seem to reinforce Tuckman’s legendary model.  The dysfunctions result when the stages are not properly resolved.

Tuckman’s Five Stages of Team Development	Lencioni’s Five Dysfunctions of a Team
Forming	Absence of Trust (Invulnerability)
Storming	Fear of Conflict (False Harmony)
Norming	Lack of Commitment (Ambiguity)
Performing	Avoidance of Accountability (Low Standards)
Adjourning	Inattention to Results

Taking it a step further, we can apply the dysfunctions of a team to common class problems, both student-to-student and student-to-trainer.

Dysfunction	Classroom Effects
Absence of Trust	Group and pair work is constrained. Learner opinions are formed only by role-play cues. Poor learner interaction without trainer involvement. Open discussion activities fail. Learners doubt course material and trainer.
Fear of Conflict	Learners withhold opinions until trainer establishes popular views. Discussions are lifeless and students remain passive. Trainer is unable to obtain feedback on training and learning styles. Trainer is unable to assess whether materials fit learners’ needs.
Lack of Commitment	Dropping attendance. Low homework / self-study completion. Learners do not consider or provide material to improve course. Learners do not listen to their classmates. Learners do not use trainer as a resource outside of lesson.
Avoidance of Accountability	Unclear progress, no pressure to improve. Learners merely repeatedly practice the language they already know. Trainer does not introduce or enforce risk taking or improved performance.
Inattention to Results	Learners do not notice what they have learned / do not apply lessons to real life. Training objectives are not defined / reached.

I have provided a long list, but it is certainly not complete.  But we can see that certain course shortcomings can be attributed to group dysfunction, either between the students themselves or within the trainer-student relationship.

If this is the case, it makes sense to ensure we as trainers encourage and allow the stages of group development to occur.  This should be incorporated into syllabus design.  However, most syllabi I encounter (and have made in the past) are linear (meaning we achieve the training objectives at a steady pace), essentially asking the trainer to jump straight to the performing stage.  Naturally, the trainer will front load some team-building activities (forming) and needs analysis, but targeted lessons soon follow.

I advocate an ‘accelerating’ syllabus, in which the course slowly builds toward the can-do statements.  Toward the beginning of the course, the aims of the lessons are aimed at completing the group development stages.  As the course progresses, the learners are able to accomplish more during the performing stage, reaching the same training objectives in the same timeframe.

Here are some considerations for the various group stages:

Forming – Building trust, overcoming inhibitions to speak, listening

·         Allowing extended group small talk at the start of lessons in L1

·         More whole group discussions about jobs, hobbies, personal issues, job issues

·         Cross talk activities about current events within their organizations

·         Interview activities about personal histories

·         Encouraging contact outside the classroom (both T-S and S-S)

Storming – Expressing opinions, setting expectations, identifying learning styles, establishing self-study

·         Negotiated needs analysis

·         Utilize learning styles

·         Test activities to determine what works and what doesn’t (with delayed feedback)

·         Test homework completion level / commitment level

·         Focus on metalanguage and language learning terms

·         Focus on self-study skills / using online resources

·         High lesson feedback from students

·         Start learner journals, lesson feedback forms, learner expectations for the course / trainer / peers

·         Trainer facilitated conversations on controversial topics, encouraging different opinions

Norming – Adopting rules, setting expected commitment level, formalizing goals, establishing activity type balance, formalizing the course plan

·         Establish ‘rules’ of the course (how much time Ss will spend on self-study, goals, behavior, absence notification, trainer follow up, blended learning balance, etc.)

·         Establish preferred activity types based on learning styles, interests, etc.

·         Choosing appropriate resources

Performing – Reaching training objectives, challenging trainer and learners to achieve more

·         Full steam ahead based on materials, self-study commitment, learning styles, and learner interests

Adjourning – Assessing, reflecting

·         Prove what we’ve learned and how we have used it in the real world

·         Reflect on how we can take the training to the next level, both inside and outside the classroom

·         Consider how we are different than when we started

For many trainers this will come naturally, yet all too often I see elements in the wrong stage of group development.  Furthermore, a standard linear syllabus superimposes itself on the stages of group development and pushes the performing stage further to the right.

Actions which fall in the wrong position:

·         Trainer dictates commitment levels expected in course introduction

·         Coursebooks or other materials are determined before the course begins

·         Learning styles are determined by trial and error as the course progresses

·         Homework and self-study expectations fluctuate

The list goes on and on.  The point is, if we slow down at the beginning, we can go faster later.  From a business point of view, a course in the performing stage is more likely to extend the contact or pressure management to continue the program.

Naturally, different groups progress through these stages at different speeds and the group will shift between stages periodically.  For example, when teaching a whole department, the trust level among the students may already be established, only forming the group with the trainer requires effort.  But it is important for the trainer to recognize the stages of development and the dysfunctions of a team.  By doing so we can improve our training and ensure the learners are truly reaching the objectives.