the role of the facilitator

“Dare to fail, but dare to fail better” Samuel Beckett The Role of the Facilitator MADT OSS 402 assignment By JK Chaffer, July 2006 Abstract In this assignment I have described a situation where I as facilitator struggled to change my role from one ascribed to me by the course participants to one I could be authentic in and which aligned with my beliefs about the purpose and practice of development training. Notions of learning (what it is), how to learn, what to learn and from whom are central to this situation hence I have related this to Paulo Freire’s passage on Banking Education (Freire, P (1986) from Pedagogy of the Oppressed) in the critical readings (Little, R (2001)) and critiqued the application of his ideas in this description. Issues of power and authority, my internal struggle to know and be myself and to feel the ground beneath my feet were also very important and I have referenced these against other authors’ voices. Being based on my experiences and those of the women participating the critique may be said to be from a constructivist feminist paradigm. Background: the facilitation-participant situation setting The situation of facilitation in practice needs to be set in context of place, time, political and socio-economic environment to be fully understood. Three years ago I was contracted by Africa Educational Trust (AET) to develop and deliver a course to enable Sudanese women to enter teacher training by increasing their competency in use of the English language. The aims were equally ‘to develop a strategy for learning and ability to learn independently; to be well-informed citizens of the world and feel empowered as individuals, members of the community and potential employees / ers’ (Chaffer, JK, “You’re Welcome!” course handbook 2003). A full discussion on whether this constitutes development training is in my Philosophy and Structures assignment (2003) – the conclusion being, yes, with some exceptions. UNICEF were the partners for the piloting of the course in southern Sudan. For full background information please see Appendix 1 My role included facilitating the delivery of the Rumbek course, training teachers with occasional direct teaching input. Background: personal and professional I’d done a lot of reading and speaking to others about Sudan but the pilot phase was only my second experience in the field. My learning curve about the cultures, languages, UN and local politics, insecurities and generally how to be alive there was steep and fast! I was also deeply uncomfortable with my position as a white European representing a huge aid organization (with all the connotations of power and wealth) and assumed ‘western values’ (consumerism, affluence etc). I should explain that since my mid-teens I’ve taken a very cynical view of major organisations and political bodies and have always thought of myself as part of a sub-culture resisting political and corporate dominance. For many years I was involved in libertarian groups, the anarchist movement and various awareness raising activities about the ‘multi-death’ corporations empire building. At the time I’d lived outside of Britain for many years and had a fairly mixed up sense of cultural influences. Background: Freire’s concepts of Education Below is a summary of my understanding of the two key educational concepts Freire describes. The Banking Concept. Freire presents us with two very stark and starkly contrasting models of education. The banking concept I understand to view teachers as vaults of knowledge that they transfer to ‘empty’ and unquestioning students through talking at them on a subject. The authority or power within the classroom is totally with the teacher and he / she also represents authority invested by a state or society. In filling the students with state-sanctified knowledge he also represses creativity and questioning or noticing behaviors. The output is a closed circle of students who think like teachers and go on to become teachers or other employees and advocates of the state. The assumptions are that the society is a large enveloping body that is threatened by change and criticism and therefore needs to oppress in order to maintain itself as a status quo. The concept is teacher centric, hierarchical and can never be liberating for either teacher or student. This assumes that the students are unconscious of their situation, their only possible place of learning is the classroom with the teacher, they have no knowledge of other ways of being and they do not have any free thought, speech or action either outside the classroom or in it. In short it views both students and teachers as 1-dimensional beings whose only aspect is that of ‘being a student’ or being a teacher. These flat people can only take part in one-way transfer of information given/ received in one form only - the word - and who can only conceive of future in the same single state as they currently exist in. The banking concept is valued as bad thing (for liberation and humanity). The Problem–Posing Concept The problem-posing concept as I understand it bears no resemblance to the above except in that the two players are the same: teachers and students. In this model of education the teacher does not represent a society, both he and the students share each others roles (teacher-student), both have the capacity to learn and learning occurs through challenging their situation leading to perception and critical awareness. Through ‘becoming’ and developing, both players may become agents of change so helping others to liberate themselves from an oppressive society. The focus is on change through choice as a continuous concept but change directed towards having full humanity. By this I understand Freire means more equal in terms of responsibility and freedom and also more creative, able to transform and to move forward to a changing future by learning from the past. Its assumptions are reflexive, conscious people. They are ego-less, wholly altruistic people who face a common oppressor from which they seek liberation. It assumes free, constant and meaningful two-way (multi-way?) communication that all will hear, contemplate and use as a catalyst for positive egalitarian change. The problem-posing concept is valued as a good thing for liberation and humanity. Freire also proposes in the revolutionary, liberating egalitarian society there will be leaders whose first act will be to change the education system to that of the problem-posing concept despite having come from a banking system themselves can we assume? Freire and development training The problem-posing concept with teacher as learner promoting questioning, personal change and developing agency in society fits well with the concepts fundamental to development training. As a development trainer I also hold the concepts of striving for personal growth, developing the courage not to know and becoming able to remain fluid in the face of changes. Above all I value courage and trust in the self to ‘be’ – both as something I aspire to and that I put out there as a choice for people I work with to aspire towards too. If I had to inhabit Freire’s black and white world of banking and problem-posing I would choose to be one of the good guys and work with problem-posing concepts as a methodology for education. Freire, development training and southern Sudanese learning The link then between Freire and the experience of facilitating an experiential learning situation in Rumbek is the resonance with development training. As described above, the course and delivery of the course had an egalitarian concept where teachers learn from participants and vice versa. The course aimed to promote questioning, empowerment and encourages participants to act as agents of change. Freire describes the starting point for the adoption of the problem-posing concept as “with men and women in the “here and now” which constitutes the situation within which they are submerged, from which they must emerge, and in which they intervene.” He goes on to talk about changing their perception from being unalterable to merely “limiting – and therefore challengeable”. What was the situation? Were the ‘men and women’ still submerged or already emerging? One could perceive the participants as newly liberated having resisted dominance by another culture (the Arabic north) and as women, having been released / released themselves from historical gender-defined roles. The war was finishing and the destruction, instability and flux left in its wake created an opportunity for new attitudes and development. There was certainly a desire to move forward, for change and a way to a more progressive, egalitarian and evolving society. As Freire recommends us to embrace a liberating educational concept as one of the first acts in alleviating oppression the decision to introduce a development training course in the immediate post-war environment should also be desirable. Whether beginning or continuing a journey of “transformation and inquiry” the precept of a facilitated learning journey with educational content to be chewed over was justifiable. Perceptions of authority The heart of the matter was the perception of the here and now – the point of departure. Sponsors, participants, teachers and I as facilitator perceived the starting point as ‘already emerging’ – liberation from oppressor had begun, the job in hand was to help shake off remaining baggage from that long period and make easier the process of questioning, problem-posing, self-determination (“becoming”) and having agency over the shaping of a new country and future. It emerged, fairly rapidly for me, that the reality was very different. The participants perceived their state as entirely alterable and were open to new ideas and new ways of being. The challenge was that they did not see themselves as agents of that change – they wanted to go along with change. They saw me as a representing an authority I did not feel I carried and felt strongly that I did not want to carry, and that I would ‘give’ them this ‘power’ and guide them to better future. It was Heron’s central paradox: facilitator authority in generating free and rounded learning (Heron, J 1993), amplified beyond just facilitator authority to representing the cultural and economic authority of the sponsors and the western world. In my eyes I had become one of the bad guys of the banking system – gone over to ‘the dark side’! Authority (and its associated notions of power) – what this was, who gave it, who was perceived to have it and who assumed it - was the central issue to challenge on the course. I suspect a situation where authority is not an issue is largely unachievable in any situation given the external factors and cultural influences to consider. How the perceived authority mis-match came into being In each situation we take on as facilitator somewhere there is a sponsor – someone who organizes and pays for the course. The facilitator must establish their position in the polygon of sponsor(s) and participants particularly with regard to each parties’ motives for developing and running that course. In Rumbek the relationship with the main sponsor, AET, had political, practical and financial objectives that the course facilitation needed to stay in line with. My negotiated remit with AET was to develop and deliver a relevant, practical course with content developed from a needs analysis I’d carried out locally and delivery methodology developed using my experience. With a few agreed exceptions (e.g. representing the organization in meetings with other agencies) AET were keen for me to act independently and my view of my role was a facilitator responding to the needs of the participant without a sponsor sub-agenda. I hoped, naively, that this would mean in group work I would carry only authority invested in me by participants and as the author of the course materials. I realize after reading Heron (Heron, J 1993) that by acting mainly Some of the participants were involved in the development of the course materials suggesting content subjects, giving stories and songs for materials and discussing how best we should work together. There were also co-developers from other tribes and locations. directively in the Planning and Structuring dimensions I had removed the power to make decisions from the participants and therefore was using political authority. Certainly decision making at L4 and L3 was entirely directive (hierarchical). My intention was to remain authentic to my beliefs in development training and to avoid assumed political authority when in role as facilitator both with the participants and when representing AET with other agencies including the SPLM. The reality on the ground meant that this was impossible. UNICEF’s support for the course was to provide transport, accommodation, security and access to their offices. This meant flying-in in UN planes, driving in UN vehicles, staying in the UN camp and being introduced to local agencies and individuals through the UNICEF education officer and the Sudanese counterpart officer. Whilst this was all absolutely invaluable it was also the equivalent of walking around with a huge banner saying ‘look at me, I have money, knowledge, resources and all the advantages you associate with the western world’ with ‘power’ in bold on the back! I’d anticipated being a white, female European would be a big enough label but had hoped to keep a low profile and avoid ‘playing the white man’. The paradox in action was that I did have knowledge, skills, connections and resources which the people I worked with did not. These were highly valued by them (and me) but I did not want to have put upon me the associated power or authority that being in ‘possession’ of these resources brought. My view was that they had equally valuable knowledge, skills, connections and resources that I did not – in fact they were more valuable as they were directly relevant to the local environment. They could not initially conceive how these resources might be valuable to me. Other factors contributing to the ‘unalterable’ authority of the facilitator (and teachers): Discovered through discussion with the participants in and out of the course and occasionally with the aid of interpreters Socio-historical – hangover of the Banking System Everyone I spoke to described their previous learning experiences in very similar ways to those Freire uses with the Banking concept. Teachers I saw in action at local primary schools employed these methods – learning by rote, copying from the board, repeat after me etc. In these situations the teacher held absolute authority from many sources: that created for him by the students; the authority of representing the state and its ideologies about the nature and content of education and citizenship; the authority of the education board through the ownership of the curriculum, materials, school buildings etc; the authority of being the holder of knowledge and decision maker in the classroom and the authority of being male and having passed through the school system themselves. Having said that teachers in general were not well paid and had low status in the local society unless they had made it beyond secondary school to college. Participants brought their experience of two to four years of this type of education with them. This can only have been reinforced by the fact that the course was taking place in the shell of the old Rumbek school. The role of gender and culture The women said that they found it hard to stop being ’shy’ and ask questions or respond to open questions from the teachers, particularly with the male teachers. It was not in their culture to question men or to question authority. They agreed that their culture was changing and they wanted to have more choice about lives but believed questioning elders was not the best path to achieve this. Would the problem-solving concept be applicable in a society where gender roles are so strictly defined? Freire says that “any situation in which some individuals prevent others from engaging in the process of inquiry is one of violence”. He would also encourage people to be critically objective about a reality that perceives itself perceiving the world. From discussions with the women it would appear that whilst they are unhappy about openly challenging male authority and the hierarchy of their culture they do not feel this is a situation of violence. They feel they have chosen this path in from a well-informed stance. The participants wanted more choice for women in the new post-war society, but they did not want this for themselves. They wanted education for their daughters and sons and for them to be successful and make southern Sudan a great place. Educated children with a strong family and good jobs were their choice for their (the women’s) futures. They had made critically objective choices and perceived the best strategy for the ‘pursuit of full humanity’ was to continue on their path of slow change within their culture; they perceived their culture as valuable and necessary to their people’s identity particularly during the fragile period of change from fighting a common enemy to the return to peace. As educated mothers they would be better able to care for their children’s health, well-being and education. Liberation for them came with literacy to read medicine bottles, teaching their children to read and write in English, through earning money as a teacher and more opportunities to go on more courses. There was also a degree of trust in the ‘old system’ where the teacher’s knowledge was ‘given’ to them and his authority unchallengeable. They had experienced that they were better off after schooling than before and that they did ‘know’ things from this experience – they perceived that it had ‘worked’. They also saw that great men had emerged from this system – Dr John Garang and other rebel leaders had been schooled in this manner. Didn’t education need to be hard to filter for excellence? These men used the knowledge the schooling gave them, questioned it with friends and used it against the system to start the rebel movement and lead them to liberation. When challenged that the aggression, competition and self-belief needed to excel in and / or challenge the old education system were all male characteristics and that the system favoured men, the women agreed but said leading the fighting was not what they wanted. They needed to be strong and keep families and homes together. Their time to lead would come with peace. It could be argued that this is a clever use of hindsight to present a situation of powerlessness and lack of choice as one of positive determination. However the concept of the family having priority over the individual was constant and universal – perhaps this is the pursuit of full humanity in action and outside of education. The wow factor of the new / The glamour of the west The participants said that they were happy to listen and learn what the teachers / facilitator said and found it hard to engage in cooperative decision making and activities. They said the fact that the course was new and from a UN / European organisation made it interesting and desirable. Here the teacher’s authority came not from representing the oppressor of the state but from, what could be said to be a new oppressor. The fact that the content was centered on the lives and needs of Sudanese (women) and the methodology for student-teacher interaction was very much dialogical was completely overshadowed by the glamour of the agency stamp and our just being there. There was no desire to be equal through process – ‘just tell us what you know and we will be like you’ was the attitude. This was not the passive receptacle of the banking concept but an active participant voice who were making choices that were different from the facilitator (and teachers). By following the facilitator’s choice (of problem-posing) were we in fact using a ‘banking’ concept of authority or is this what Freire recommends in introducing problem-posing right from the start of a new era in order that the agencies don’t become a new oppressor? Life is a challenge The participants felt that life was a big challenge and that everything they did involved problems of a real and difficult nature. The course provided a safe zone for them where they could enjoy being there, being with each other and learning together. Initially they didn’t want to put in the effort for active learning and responsibility for themselves and each other in the classroom. Base units My experience of the start of group work courses both as participant and facilitator are that the process of introduction and getting to group can be challenging, delicate and filled with anxieties. My experience in Rumbek was that there simply was no ‘getting to group’ stage: despite the fact that many of the women did not know each other before the initial ‘welcome’ meeting and prior to any ‘group’ activity there was a definite sense of group forming just by being in the space together. The youngest teacher, Kristine, was definitely part of this whilst the three other teachers (2 male) and I were apart. I needed to check whether this was my own ignorance of Dinka language and culture combined with a projection of what I wished to happen, however speaking with one of the Dinka teachers confirmed my initial observation ‘sure, they were together!’. The teacher also confirmed that they three had held themselves (actively) apart ‘because we are the teachers’. As mentioned earlier and shown here Dinka society is fundamentally different from European in that the individual is not the base unit – family or group is. Freire notes that “the pursuit of full humanity cannot be carried out in isolation or individualism, but only in fellowship and solidarity”. According to this view then the Dinka society is already well advanced in its humanization – does this mean that problem-posing education is then superfluous or should have different goals? Changing perceptions of authority During the first few weeks of the course the women’s perception of my authority (as part of the UN / west) changed only marginally. The rapport we built up was warm and friendly (similarly with the teachers) but the difference in power (created by them and placed on me) was unimpeachable. The factors that contributed significantly to a more egalitarian open dialogue and the removal of the ‘UN’ authority were the ones I would espouse as universal to facilitation: being authentic (not hiding my tendency to question authority); development of trust, warmth, empathy; showing of human-ness (by me and the teachers), but most of all being open and giving and daring to fail. There were several critical moments in developing the dialogue: a session where sub-groups developed, agreed on and wrote up a learning contract to commit to their own development and to supporting each other where we all acknowledged how hard learning could be and that it was ok to fail the realization that we both saw each other completely differently during a session on appearance (I could not describe them by teeth length and shape which is how they described me and each other). This was the start of a process of understanding that they had skills and resources I did not and that these were valuable to me. my constant mistake making and openness about failing their sympathy for me as a childless, unmarried woman: this changed my understanding of what authority is and how it is given or withheld I understand now that I had been authorizing the participants in a way described in the Mother Daughter Revolution (Debold, E et al 1994) referenced by Smith-Franklin (Smith-Franklin, B 1997) where the mother “authorizes her daughter by giving her permission to say what she sees and knows…. and authorizes her daughter by amplifying her daughter’s voice with her own”. I feel more comfortable with this notion of authority. Their sympathy for me changed our roles and made this model of authority visible: they became the mothers authorizing me to speak. I understand now that what happened in many situations following this was a flipping back and forth between mother-daughter roles. In one instance I spoke on both of our behalves to challenge the local SPLM Education Officer about their living conditions with authorization from them. After some time they took back the authority and spoke for themselves. This moment was deeply significant (a first) for all parties: open negotiation with a male elder by the women without directly challenging his authority through which they achieved significant change in their community. They used the implicit authority of my presence (and association with the agency) to authorize their group voice. They dared to fail, but dared to fail better. Freire’s “teacher-student contradiction” took a long time and a lot of work to move away from. Teacher-student dialogue where both sides learned and taught was something we moved towards and in part achieved. Freire’s aim of both sides becoming ‘jointly responsible for a process in which all grow’ is definitely possible and desirable but I believe not because “arguments based on “authority” are no longer valid”. Authority will always be part of the equation, but it can be fluid and dynamic. Appendix 1 Location and political, socio-economic context The course was for learners in southern Sudan, at the time, just emerging from 35 years of civil war that had decimated the country leaving no infrastructure, extreme poverty and a breakdown of society. We piloted the 2-month course in three locations: the situation discussed was in Rumbek working with women of the Dinka tribe. Three of the four teachers were also Dinka, the fourth was Azande, also southern Sudanese. A brief overview: traditionally Dinka tribes are governed by male elders; cattle are the lifeblood, currency and status symbols; men will buy up to 14 or 15 wives who will have between 8 and 15 children each; women are possessions; the practice of brother inheritance is still strong; much of the year is spent nomadically tending cattle away from the home village. The war changed the gender balance to 60-70% female and roles were changing: some women ran their own households and with the assistance of NGOs started to run small enterprises and enter education (where it existed). However these were exceptions and most women’s lives were short and filled with the drudgery of daily chores. Participants Participants on the course had some schooling – generally 3-4 years of primary; average age 27; all except two were married /widowed; most with children; most participated on a residential basis. The number attending varied from 28 to 32 over the 2 month period. The course Right from the start the course followed a communicative, intercultural methodology but initial lessons were more structured with teachers assuming a more authoritarian role. The concept was to reduce the double shocks of return to intensive learning and a radically different approach than primary school ‘learning by rote’. There were three projects during the course. The students were given a general theme and asked to develop their own course of study and outputs within this as a project group. The teachers could be called on to facilitate access to sources of information and encourage question forming and creativity. Participants were also asked to take on a ‘student’ of their own to pass on their knowledge and skills. This was called the Give and Take Scheme: the aims being to reinforce language learning and improve self-esteem and confidence. Bibliography – OSS402 The Role of the Facilitator Berry, W. (1990), What are people for? North Point Press Billington, R. (1997), Understanding Eastern Philosophy. Routledge Bion, W.(1961), Experiences in Groups. Tavistock, London. Bolton, G. (2001) Reflective Practice. Paul Chapman Publishing Boud and Miller, (1996) Working with Experience. Routledge London and New York Freire, P. (1996), Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Penguin Books Fromm, E. (1993), The Art of Being. Constable, London Heron, J. (1989), The Facilitators Handbook. Kogan Page, London Hogan, C. (2002), Understanding facilitation. Kogan Page Ltd (e-book) Hunt Jr, JS. (1990), Ethical Issues in Experiential Education. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company Little, R. (2001), the Role of the Facilitator: critical readings. Impact DTG Loynes, C. (2002), Reflexivity and Development Training Loynes, C. (2002), Noticing Mortlock, C. (2001), Beyond Adventure. Cicerone Press Neri, C. (1998), Group. Jessica Kingsley Publishers Ringer, T.M. (2002), Group Action. Jessica Kingsley Publishers Robinson, D. & Groves, J. (1999), Introducing Philosophy. Icon Books UK Rogers, C. and Freiberg, H.J. (1993) Freedom to Learn. Merrill, New York Smith-Franklin, B (1997) Reading our Worlds as Teachers, Journal of critical pedagogy, Vol 1, Issue 1, Goucher College, Maryland . In the critical readings. PAGE 11