PART THREE: TEAM PRODUCT & PROCESS

A. Product: Trainer Self-Evaluation of Design

According to Pfeiffer (1994), one core element involved in the design of trainings is that
the design of a training should be appropriate for the attendees. Since our participants are all
graduate students, the scope of our training design was specifically narrowed down to the
graduate school setting. We selected what materials to include in the lecturette with the
understanding that the majority of our participants do not possess much background knowledge
in health psychology. We screened out the theoretical models that are too complicated for a
layperson to adequately comprehend and kept a concise demonstration of only the core processes
involved in a stress response. We utilized many graphics to provide the participants with the
appropriate visual aids and an index handout of the scientific terminologies for their reference.
The appropriateness of our training design was well received among the participants because it
was both personally relevant and cognitively accessible, which also made the participants
confident that the workshop was customized to their needs and consequently more engaged
throughout the process.
In order for participants to be able to learn about themselves in a personally relevant
manner, they must feel safe and must be able to trust both the facilitators and the other
participants (Brooks-Harris & Stock-ward, 1999). Particularly, because our topic, stress, can
induce negative affect, we established from the very beginning that the training space was a safe
and warm environment and that they could take a deep breathe and recollect themselves
whenever they needed to. We also explicitly stated that that the participants do not need to
disclose any information if they do not want to. Such group norms ensured that the participants
felt mentally and physically ready for the training, free of distractions and disturbances from
depressive or anxious feelings associated with stress. In addition, by establishing such group
norms, we were able to create a friendly and intimate space where the participants were able to
trust us as well as each other and willingly share their experiences and ideas with the group.
Brookfield (1990) emphasized the need for both facilitator credibility and authenticity so
that the participants are able to fully engage in active and interactive learning. Since we as
facilitators are not professional health psychologists, it is even more important for us to convince
our audience of the legitimacy of our training content so that they can continue their participation
without any doubt. We did extensive research beforehand and decided on the information
provided by credible sources. On the PowerPoint, with each piece of such information, we listed
their references to signal their origins. We also used phrases such as according to the American
Psychological Association, or decades of research have suggested to keep our audience
convinced and reassured. However, we were not quite successful in memorizing and
internalizing all the scientific findings we used in the presentation and there were moments
where we paused for too long or had to read off our scripts. These behaviors, which were
indicative of our lack of expertise, hurt our facilitator credibility to a certain degree. As for
authenticity, we maintained congruence among the three co-facilitators and attended equally to
the interpersonal dialogues at each table as well as other aspects of the workshop environment.
Another aspect of the training design well received by the participants was the sequence
of our agenda items. The learning activities were not put in a random order. The possible effects
of each training component were carefully considered to make sure that the workshop was
structured in a logical, coherent and engaging manner. For example, during the 25-minute
lecturette, the participants might easily get distracted and become disengaged learning only from
thinking. The barometer game in the middle of the lecturette gave them a chance to change the
learning mode from abstract conceptualization (AC) to reflective observation (RO) and to
recharge through moving around the room. Meditation was put at the end of the workshop so that
the participants can leave the training feeling relaxed and stress-free.
Our group have an adequate understanding of the differences between a workshop and a
traditional, content-based class and the role of a facilitator as opposed to a teacher or instructor.
According to Brooks-Harris and Stock-ward (1999), a workshop can guide and encourage
personal and interpersonal learning (p. 7), which creates a learning experience that is more
powerful and memorable for the participants. With such ideas in mind, in the training design, we
allotted sufficient time to make sure that the participants could engage in learning between and
among themselves as well as participatory experience. We planned discussions and activities for
our participants that specifically suit this purpose: discussing in groups on what their major
sources of stress are after the energizer, comparing their previous holistic stress level with their
perceived stress score on an analytical scale after the barometer game accompanied by self-
reflections, sharing the stress-reduction techniques they use, brainstorming about the rationale
behind each of our recommended stress-coping strategies using the information given in the
lecturette. However, in the training, the time we actually spent on these activities significantly
shrank and the purpose of providing active and individualized learning for our participants was
not successfully achieved.
We believe that the inconsistency between planning and execution was caused by several
factors. The biggest reason was that we did not have a clear picture of how the activities should
proceed. While a large part of the problem stems from the inability for us to rehearse the
activities before the workshop, we, on our part, failed to make concrete predictions about the
prospective audiences responses and to lay out several plans that correspond to different
possible reactions. Without rehearsals or any backup plans in place, we were unsure about what
we could do during the activities and the pressure resulting from this uncertainty, mixed with
second-speaker anxiety, public-speaking anxiety and time concerns, lead to us shortening these
segments and sticking with the one-way communication style within our comfort zone.
To avoid this inconsistency in the future, the facilitators can come up with several
possible answers from the participants point of view and take them into account during
rehearsals. In this way, not only can the facilitators have a clear idea of how these segment might
go, but also prepare multiple sets of questions that can guide and encourage the participants to
reflect and think to the fullest extent, and ask these questions selectively according to the real
situation.
Admittedly, even if we had carried out our training design perfectly, there would still be
parts of the training that could be strengthened and improved. The following are the changes we
would make to the training design. As pointed out in the participants feedbacks, the processing
and generalizing stages of the experiential learning cycle were not sufficient in our workshop.
One false assumption we made about our participants was that since none of them have
backgrounds related to mental health, they would be more comfortable with being taught the new
information and less confident about applying it. However, as indicated by their feedbacks, our
participants actually looked forward to using the information from the lecturette to judge the
merits and demerits of the commonly used stress-coping techniques instead of having the
answers fed to them. In the future, we will give the participants a chance to make their own
judgements and then synthesize and acknowledge the participants answers at the end of the
segment.
 With the same line of thinking, a similar piece of personal and interpersonal learning can
also be incorporated in the debriefing stage after the three scenarios. After the participants
actively experiment with the recommended strategies, we can ask the participants to brainstorm
about why a certain strategy is recommended for that specific scenario and then provide the
scientific evidence in addition to what the participants say. More importantly, the facilitators
should ask the participants to think creatively of other strategies for that scenario, which can be a
combination or a modification of the previously introduced positive strategies, or something
completely new.
The lack of interactive component also lead to an imbalance of the meeting of needs of
individual learning styles. A key idea in Kolbs model is that experiential learning occurs most
effectively when the training design matches the learning styles of the participants (Kolb, 1984).
Unfortunately, given that our training centered around unidirectional instructions and active
experimentation, which worked well for analytic learners and common sense learners, the needs
of imaginative learners and dynamic learners were left unattended. Since there are four types of
facilitation skills that correspond to four learning styles, we will focus on engaging facilitation
skills (corresponding to imaginative learners) and applying facilitation skills (corresponding to
dynamic learners) in order to achieve a balance in the experiential learning process.
Engaging skills help workshop participants reflect on their own experience and connects
their past experience with their current learning experience (Brooks-Harris & Stock-ward, 1999).
The engaging facilitation skills that will help fulfill this purpose include: asking for more
information, questioning, probing and encouraging brainstorming. While drawing on past
experience and self-reflection both take time, during our presentation, we rushed these segments
and were unable to give our participants the opportunity to create personal meaning. By asking
for more information, questioning, probing and encouraging brainstorming, we will truly give
the floor to the participants and let them use their own wisdom to solve the problems presented
to them. For example, when an individual mentioned running as her way to destress, we can ask
her to tell us more about why running works for her and reinforces her point by praising her
answers.
Applying facilitation skills allow participants to personalize the information they have
just learned by planning to apply the knowledge to their own personal or professional lives
(Brooks-Harris & Stock-ward, 1999). The applying phase of our workshop was not quite short
but also consists mostly of encouragement. While we encouraged them to face the stress head on
and to explore the resources we provided, they were not asked to produce any concrete product.
We think generalizing from one role to another is a skill we can use in the future. From example,
asking the participants if they have friends or family members who are under a great amount of
stress, what advice they will give to help them better cope with the stress. We can also ask
participants to make their oral action plan so that the participants have a chance to think about
the newly absorbed information and come up with future plans on what strategies they would use
in specific stressful situations.
Another false assumption we made about our participants was that they understand the
purpose of each phase of our training design as clearly as we do. Letting participants know why
each technique is used and giving them an idea of what behavior is expected from them is a vital
step to reduce anxiety and to avoid doubt (Brooks-Harris & Stock-ward, 1999). Some
participants mentioned that the three scenarios we gave were a little arbitrary while in fact the
three scenarios were developed based on the three major stressors that the participants had
indicated on the previous needs assessment. Assuming that the connection between the needs
assessment questions and the training design was obvious, we did not emphasize that link and
ended up confusing our participants. What can be done in the future is explicitly stating the
purpose of each phase of our training design so that the participants have a clear understanding
of why the technique or activity is designed and executed in that way. We believe that with more
priming in place, the reactions of the participants will be more in line with the expectations of the
facilitators and are less likely to feel confused or resistant along the way.
It was also noted that for some participants who had never heard of GBTC, it was
challenging for them to keep up with the choreography. Our goal for this activity was not to
teach the participants to do GBTC correctly step by step, but to give them a chance to experience
an indoor physical exercise that helps graduate students regain their energy after long hours of
studying. However, we failed to communicate that message to the participants and as a result, the
participants focused more on the forms of their movements instead of how their minds and
bodies felt during the process. We recommend that future trainers make this message clear to the
participants before they get to try GBTC. To make the activity more novice-appropriate, they
may also want to consider using a video-editing software that can adjust the video to a slower
speed rate so that all the participants can follow the choreography.
According to Brooks-Harris and Stock-ward (1999), facilitators should decide how to
pace and time their agenda items by considering which of the training goals are most important
and allot their time according to these priorities. We seem to have handled it in the opposite way.
By rushing through all the learning activities, we let the fear of running out of time surpass our
goal of creating an engaging and effective experiential learning experience. In the future, we can
invite people to sit in our rehearsals and play the role of participants, so we have a concrete
understanding of our timing and pacing. By recording the length of each segment, we can stretch
or condense different segments accordingly based on their importance to the five learning
phases.
 Ray) According to the feedback from our participants, our design of the
activities of application in the learning cycle seems not that obvious to them.The
second element is being clear about what the real goals of the training and how they
will be achieved. As for this, I think we set reasonable and meaningful goals. But we
did not assign every objective to a certain activity, which could make the achievement
process unclear.
(Yichen) One piece of feedback said that one of our objectives (To judge whether some common
stress management strategies are good or bad) was not met, which indicated that we did not
make the purpose of our every activity very explicit, or our activities did not directly relate to our
objectives which might cause some confusion.
False assumptions: in our energizer (the trivia game), we assumed that our participants would be
nervous and feel stressed out. However, some participants said they felt funny instead of stressed
out. This may affect their results of experiencing process that we would want to achieve.

What changes would you make if you were to do this design again? Why?
(Ray) I would add one activity at the end of our workshop and it could be to ask participants
make their oral action plan which means participants will orally present their possible future
plans on strategies they would use in specific stressful situations. According to Brook-Harris and
Stock-ward (1999), action plan as one planning activity could offer opportunity to the
participants to apply the knowledge into their life outside the workshop. And I think oral action
plan could be one easy and effective chance for the speaker and the other participants to review
the knowledge they received from our workshop and apply these knowledge at the same time.
(Yichen) I would make the purposes of our activities more clear. I would make sure that every
objective could be explicitly relate to certain activities on the agenda. In that way, our
participants can clearly see that our objectives correspond to our activities, and we can make sure
that every objective can be met.
For GBTC part, I would save more time for instruction and processing. Since participants from
other countries have never heard of GBTC, they may need more time to learn about this exercise
such as its background without feeling confused. And we also should leave more time for
processing. I would ask them more questions concerning this activity such as how they think this
activity could work to release stress. In that way, they may realize how exercise can release stress
and how this activity fit this scenario and our graduate life. Besides, we ended up using far more
less time than we expected. We could definitely extend the length of our activities.

What worked well in your design, why?

(Ray) I think our design of demonstrating three recommended stress-coping strategies work well
because these demonstration engaged our participants and made them experience these
strategies. According to the feedbacks from several participants, a lot of them did not have the
experiences of adapting to our recommended strategies before our workshop. In this sense, I
think the three scenario activities achieve to involve the participants into one experiential
learning process.
(Yichen)

What are your ideas, suggestions and recommendations for further development of this design?
(Ray) I would state the reasons that we recommend the specific strategy in that specific scenario
more explicitly if possible. Besides, I would also speak more explicitly to our participants that
the three stressful scenarios result from the need assessment so that to make participants feel
more targeted and purposeful.
(Yichen) The energizer of our workshop which is meant to make participants feel stressed out
does not have to be the trivia game we used. Or we can make some improvements of the trivia
game since many participants seemed amused instead of nervous. For example, we can use some
nerve-inducing sound, and add more questions in a round.
The theoretical part of the lecturette could also be compressed a little. Or we could put that part
in handout for participants to check out after the workshop.
I would also suggest to extend the discussion and activity time. So that we could collect more
data from the participants and let them process and apply more.

B. Intercultural Awareness in Design

Intercultural awareness was incorporated in our training through the introduction of the
concept of locus of control, which is a very pertinent personality dimension to stress and coping.
We think it is easy for people to see certain attitudes towards stress or certain stress-coping
mechanisms that are fundamentally different from their own as less valid, less legitimate and less
correct. For example, a person with high internal locus of control may think of someone who
uses cognitive strategies instead of changing his/her own behavior as lazy or passive. In order to
keep our audience away from these potential biases and raise intercultural awareness among the
participants, we showed them the tendencies in dealing with stress of different cultures in regards
to locus of control. The point of this piece was for the participants to see that the stress-coping
strategies an individual uses do not speak to how brave/cowardly, how strong/weak, how
confident/unsure, or how competent/incompetent this person is and that how people behave
under stressful circumstances are in fact influenced by the larger cultural factors. More
importantly, we established that neither tendency, internal or external, is superior to the other and
people have the right to choose the coping mechanisms that work best for them, as long as no
harm is caused by their preferred strategies. We hope through the lecturette, the participants can
gain a new cross-cultural perspective on stress and coping and stay open-minded about the
different types of strategies used by different people without making quick judgments.
Apart from the locus control part in the lecturette, the GBTC exercise was chosen among
the other intense physical exercises that can be done indoors because it also carries the mark of
intercultural awareness. While GBTC is only known to Chinese students, it is an effective and
fun way for all populations to release stress. By introducing GBTC, we are also introducing a
slice of Chinese culture that some of our participants were unfamiliar with. We wanted to elicit
good memories from the participants from China and provide new perspectives for students who
had never been exposed to that staple of Chinese culture.

C. Process: Teamwork & Evaluation of Training Design

Describe how the training design process evolved for your team. Include a description of the
individual team member roles in the design, implementation, and evaluation parts of this
training.
How did the team dynamics influence the training?
(Yichen) Since we are all Chinese students, we designed some activity with Chinese
characteristics in our workshop such as GBTC.
How did the team approach conflict throughout this process or difficult situations?
What were the resolutions?
Describe your own teams process of learning and decision making as a group. What collective
learning are you taking away as a team?
(Yichen) each of us took charge of certain part of the workshop design. Within our own part, we
have autonomy. We make decisions about our own part first, and then we came back as a group to
see the workshop design and give suggestions on others part. If the rationale for changes is
validated and agreed by the whole group, we made the changes.