WHAT ME? Using open learning techniques and peer support to empower individuals GILLIAN E. SMITH 14, Hope Crescent, Melton Park, Woodbridge, Suffolk IP12 1SJ, UK ABSTRACT This paper describes two projects, both self development programmes, one for middle managers in schools and one for young people recruited to act as health educators among their peers. It then identifies some key aspects of the approach used which are relevant to the areas of interest for GASAT 8. KEY WORDS Self development; open/independent learning; peer education; skills development; health education; empowerment. BACKGROUND This paper is a reflection on my personal exploration of one area of professional development over the last five years. This is broadly about the empowerment of individuals at all levels within the context of their daily work - and indeed daily life. It has proved to be the logical next step in a career in teaching and management which has moved through the stages of focus on task to focus on the team to focus on the organisation and is now looking at the development of the individual as the key factor in the progress of organisations and communities. I should like to acknowledge the cooperation of Suffolk County Council Education Department, Youth Clubs UK, James Paget Hospital Promotion Services and Marilyn Harvey, an independent consultant, in allowing me to refer in this paper to work which they commissioned and for which they own the copyright. A SELF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME FOR MIDDLE MANAGERS This project for Middle Managers, which I headed for four years, was part of a Local Education AuthorityÕs management development programme for people working at different levels in its schools. It was estimated that there were at least 1500 teachers who could be classified as "middle managers" and therefore as potential users. Purely practical constraints of time and money meant that the traditional approach of short courses was not feasible. However, the team of five, who were given responsibility for the design, development and running of this project, rapidly became convinced that there were also sound educational advantages in using the approach of self development on the job. The first year involved both design and delivery. Having hammered out what we were setting out to achieve and the principles and framework within which we would work, we recruited our first cohort of 60 middle managers to act as both contributors to and users of the evolving programme. Initially we encountered considerable hostility from some of this group who had anticipated a course of instruction on management tasks. However, once they had begun to test out the early units, they worked with great commitment, reporting on their experience, suggesting revisions, increasingly helping to draft the following stages. The organisation of numbers like these was demanding but this collaborative approach paid dividends. These grassroots representatives made a vital contribution to content, language and ÔfitÕ, enabling the team to draw on immediate experience of middle management in a wide range of situations and cultures. Interestingly, after their initial shock the extended group never questioned the framework worked out by the team. We had three guiding thoughts. First the purpose of the project was to help people to develop their practice of management rather than to know more about it. Secondly, since the main activity was to be based in the workplace, the raw material of the programme was already there in each participantÕs day to day tasks; there was no need to invent more. What was needed was guidance in exploiting this material. Thirdly, to avoid a sense of isolation, we had recruited our project members in pairs. It soon became clear that the partnerships which were developing were to become the most creative and exciting feature of the project. Increasingly, we built in a co-coaching role. Within the first few weeks we were able to bring together these key aspects of the project's framework in a simple model. Contributing to the main model are three further elements. Originally we ran a day course to introduce participants to the framework and the method of working and to help them to set up their partnership. Later this was incorporated into the independent learning activities. An outside coach, who would pay two or three visits to the pair and could be contacted if the need arose, was built in as backup. Initially the team performed this function but from the second year we recruited and trained some of the first cohort of middle managers to support their peers. The term "technical modules" may not find approval within GASAT members! In our shorthand it indicated training in particular management functions, like timetabling or making staff appointments, for which it is generally possible to attend short courses. These were seen as a supplement to our programme, where emphasis was on skills and attitudes related to managing self and team. A simple format was adopted for the stimulus materials. Each activity was set out on a Task Sheet, identifying the particular aspect of management it was focusing on, explaining the task and its purpose and suggesting ways of working. The challenge was to make these clear and succinct while allowing for interpretation and application at different individual levels of experience and seniority. We came to believe strongly in the importance of a firm conceptual framework within which people had space to explore and experiment in safety. Similarly the whole pack was divided into Modules according to subject matter. The first two dealt with key concepts and process skills to be used throughout the programme and were labelled as "compulsory". Individuals and pairs were invited to chart their own path through the rest, selecting whatever was appropriate to the development of their own practice and agreeing the right pace and range for them. There was an important issue about if, when and how to introduce any direct input. Occasionally, and always after some individual exploration, a short Ideas Sheet was inserted to add a piece of theory or points to think about. Finally our approach obviously required some provision for reviewing and recording experience. Several formats were tried but none seemed to make the job any more attractive to participants. However, in the end most discovered a form of review which did work for them - in depth discussion with their partner. The partnerships, which developed far beyond our original expectations, involved using each other as listener and sounding board and as a source of feedback. Here again structure mattered. We built in early activities for establishing the partnership, even between pairs who felt they knew each other well. We stressed the need for agreed groundrules, in particular the protection of both partners' ownership of their own activities and their right of control over anything they commissioned the other person to do to support them. This took much of the threat out of opening up to each other. These professional relationships contributed much to the learning achieved during the programme and many pairs maintained mutual support after the end of their involvement in it. The experience was also valuable professional development in its own right, providing practice in the sensitivities and skills involved in the coaching role of managers. It was satisfying when we were able, as here, to make the process learning serve closely the overall purposes of the project. In an open learning situation, in which the learner had ultimate control, anything we believed to be of vital importance needed to be built into the process throughout. The key working tools reinforced throughout this programme included clarifying purposes, observation and listening skills, reflecting on experience, finding what works and building on that. Through my involvement in this project I was left with a deep interest in the power of self development and peer support. While we had targeted the development of one particular professional group, there did not seem to be any reason why the same approach could not be used with any people in their own context and at their own level and I have sought opportunities to explore this further. A SELF DEVELOPMENT PACK FOR PEER EDUCATORS IN COMMUNITY HEALTH PROJECTS In the second part of this paper I shall describe my most recent opportunity to apply and test out in another context what I felt I had learnt from the middle managers project. There was an added interest because the subject was science related. There is currently considerable interest in Europe in recruiting young people to work among their peers in health education projects. I was recently asked to edit a training course for young peer educators, designed by a colleague on behalf of a national youth organisation and a Health Authority and already run successfully throughout the UK as a group activity. I was then commissioned to translate this material into an independent learning programme. The content of the programme was already determined. Again this may have surprised course members expecting tuition in health issues. Instead it dealt partly with the organisation and presentation of information but concentrated mainly on aspects of interaction with people, such as listening skills, open questioning, knowing if and how to challenge, insight into how groups work, sensitivity to feelings, clarification of purposes. If the content was set, the methodology was my responsibility. I was interested to see whether the main components of our previous model could be applied. The desired outcome was the same, the acquisition of skills, attitudes and values which the peer educators could and would use. The central column of the model looked problematic since the programme was not related to the development of practice within a context in which the young people were already operating. They were, however, all involved in rich life experiences and it seemed appropriate to seek project material in a range of family and friendship interactions, memories of personal experiences, observations in shops or buses or workplace, programmes on TV or radio. Again I developed a pack of materials to help individuals to draw the learning out of these life experiences. The format, balance of elements and language were adjusted to try to fit this particular group of users but the underlying principles of learning through doing and reflecting remained unchanged. It would seem that the most obvious process to introduce into a programme for peer educators would be the use of peer support. I was disappointed to be asked not to use co-coaching partnerships, but developed instead the notion of "supporters", other people whom individual participants could choose to approach for help. These could range from a group of fellow youth club members who would be prepared to try out activities or give views or reactions, through a trusted friend who would discuss ideas, to an experienced adult who would act as a consultant. Again guidance was given on setting up such relationships. As for the other three contributory factors, the introduction to the programme and its methodology was built into the pack. Outside coaches could be negotiated by the young people as ÔsupportersÕ or, where they have already been recruited to work on a specific health education project, there could be an obvious person in that team. A range of "technical" inputs would certainly be required to ensure their grasp of the health issues; ways of discovering and using local resources were built into the programme. The project materials have only just been sent for publication so that it is not possible to assess their impact and effectiveness. However, I personally found that the model proved a valid and helpful framework for the writing. Converting a taught course into an independent learning programme also shed light for me on differences between the two methodologies. The most interesting was perhaps that participants would need to allow longer to complete the self development version. This is because there is more emphasis on skills development. In theory this is not intended to be all extra time since guidance is focused on how to find opportunities for observation and practice in day to day situations. The taught course is stronger on awareness and on some occasions I felt it necessary to devise a whole activity to get over a point which a group leader could convey in a few sentences. Both versions beg the question of whether it is important to distinguish between science or technology based projects and others. While it would be foolish or even dangerous to be disseminating inaccurate information, in this case about health issues, nevertheless it is the people that present the biggest challenge to potential peer educators. Developing some basic skills to help to handle people (starting of course with themselves!) is a priority. SOME POINTS OF RELEVANCE TO AREAS OF INTEREST FOR GASAT 8 Not in any order of priority, here are some points about this approach which I would be interested to discuss with others involved in similar projects. It is positive and collaborative. It values existing skills and knowledge and builds on these. Women feel comfortable with it (so do men once they try it!) and gain confidence. It is based on the belief that all are capable of becoming self developers and of supporting each otherÕs development if shown how to set about it. It is practical and immediately relevant but also develops skills and habits people can go on using.It is based in the workplace (or in daily living) and does not mean taking time out. It is ÔcheapÕ, except of course that peopleÕs time is not cheap. At least it does not require a lot of individual funding. It does not require complicated equipment or resources. It also avoids death by worksheet. It can be adjusted to the level and stage where people are. It can support community projects and prepare individuals to lead and teach among their own people. It is about empowerment.