Thinking Together, Critically

Extracted text from Thinking_Together_Critically_public.pdf:

Thinking Critically, Together: A Contribution of a Participatory Approach

Jennifer G. Giezendanner

Presented at the Bible Translation Conference 2013: Promoting Excellence in Bible Translation Co-sponsored by GIAL & SIL International At the International Linguistics Center, Dallas, Texas, USA October 11 to 15, 2013

1

Thinking Together, Critically: A Contribution of a Participatory Approach By Jennifer G. Giezendanner For Bible Translation Conference October 15, 2013 at GIAL, Dallas, Texas

Think of a time when you worked with a group of colleagues where things just clicked along and you, as a group, came up with a plan, product or system that met, or even exceeded, your groups expectations for the goals you had set. What are some of the things that came together in that project to make the magic of success? Recently a group of Bible translation practitioners met together to consider the contributions that critical thinking can make to healthy Bible translation practices. They listed: promoting ownership, making good key terms and exegetical choices, finding creative solutions to translation problems, and an increased ability of translation personnel to identify new questions to answer. Clearly, the practice of thinking critically is valuable in promoting excellence in Bible translation (Participants at BT 2013 during session outlined in Appendix 1 & 2). A Case Study from an Ethnomusicology Training Effort The personnel of a national mission organization in a large Asian country serve in various holistic ministries. Besides Bible translation and oral storying, they engage in literacy and other community development efforts. One of their most recent endeavors includes ethnomusicology (EM), in which the mission personnel encourage local musicians to develop Christian music in local styles. Although a core group of musicians, technicians and field staff were trained and enthusiastic about the possibilities that EM suggested, they found themselves overwhelmed by having to carry out their EM-related tasks in addition to many other project responsibilities. For months they tried different activities, but nothing seemed to gain momentum or be sustainable. Why was this so hard, they asked, when we have been well trained, resourced and motivated? As we started working together, the goals each had were still fuzzy, creating some tensions, false starts, and confusion. However, a majority of the participants was already trained and experienced in using a participatory approach, which is the way my husband and I facilitated our problem-solving together over four very active days in October of 2012 in Bangalore, India. (See also Appendix 3.)

2

A Closer Look at a Participatory Approach A participatory approach can be defined as a way that helps peopl e to think and talk together in order to describe and analyze their situation, decide what to do, plan how to do it and evaluate what has been done. A participatory approach helps those who will benefit from activities to have a key role in all aspects of those activities (Hasselbring, 2007). The concept of a participatory approach has emerged over the years through the practices of community developers and organizational planners. Efforts focused on public health, adult literacy, agriculture, human rights, and other domains have contributed to discovering ways to engage people in achieving goals they set for themselves. Some participatory tools such as Cause-Effect Tree, Appreciative Inquiry, Force-Field Analysis, SWOT Analysis, etc. (Kumar, 2002) can be used directly in Bible translation-related field projects. A participatory process can also be used in such domains as linguistics, translation, and ethno-arts. Linguistic analysis (Lojenga, 1996), oral Bible story-crafting (Irene van Riezen, personal communication, 2012), and determining key-terms, style, and order of passages to be translated (Ruedi Giezendanner, personal communication) provide just a few examples of how communities can participate in implementing and even directing their own programs. This process of observing, thinking, describing and analyzing, deciding, and taking action with further evaluation is exemplified with the Action-Reflection Cycle below (For the initial model, see experiential learning cycle in Kolb and Fry, 1975). While this can be done by individuals, it is more powerful when groups of stakeholders work through it together. Action-Reflection Cycle

The field personnel in the EM consultation had extensive experience in their communities. The technicians had recently been trained in details of audio and video recording, plus other related uses of the most modern music-making technology. At least one musician among them had 3

attended extensive ethnomusicology training from world-famous specialists. Collectively they had loads of resources and experience, but they were stuck. In fact, to some degree it was the huge resources, both material and educational, that were confounding their progress. They had been taught all the things that they should do, and now all this was overwhelming them. Together we reflected on what they had been doing related to local music-making, what obstacles and frustrations they had met, and what their results were up to that point. We reviewed an overall EM process that they had outlined for themselves. What they recognized was that they had been working toward a sophisticated product, a CD recording of new Christian songs in local language and style, but what they were missing was the dynamic and sustainable encouragement of local musicians and technicians within a framework of ongoing community support. Together they identified five groups of stakeholders for a given community: community participants, local musicians, local technicians, logistics coordinators, and a local board for oversight and encouragement whom they termed key decision-makers. Then they broke into teams according to their own specialties and figured out what the most basic level of training and support would require for each of those stakeholder groups. They next identified a second or advanced level of training and support that would help the communities attain sustainable local music production and use. Finally, they worked in their small specialty teams to outline the basic level of training for each of the five groups of stakeholders. For some of these groups the necessary basic level of training only comprised two or three introductory lessons or modules; for the more technical, a few more. But for all categories the amount of training needed was much less than any of us had originally suspected. And within days, the curriculum was already well on its way to completion. The important revelations included several key ideas: 1) Not everyone in a community had to be trained in every aspect of ethnomusicology. 2) Not every type of available technology was appropriate or desirable. 3) The consultation participants together already had all the knowledge and skill resources necessary to work with their communities. They just needed to start sharing and learning more from one another about each others specialties. 4) They had the ability to continue solving any new challenges for the future using the same sorts of participatory approaches. Some of the participatory tools we used were aspects of Appreciative Inquiry, Domains of Music Use, Stakeholder Analysis, and, as an overall framework, the steps from The Art of Focused Conversation (Stanfield, 2000):

4

Objective: Look at the facts, what do we know? Reflective: How do we feel about what weve observed? Interpretive: What does this mean? What is helping us and blocking us? Decisional: What are the next best action steps? We also took time now and then to simply share some of the music and stories from the field that had already been successful and to appreciate and celebrate one another. Near the end of the consultation we designed some actual lessons for immediate use after the event. A Simple Model for Critical Thinking: RED We can look at the process of building this sustainable ethnomusicology movement from the point of view of developing critical thinking. The basic RED model of critical thinking (Pearson TalentLens, 2012) is summarized in the following: 1) Recognize assumptions 2) Evaluate arguments 3) Draw conclusions. 1. Recognize assumptions: A person or group can make a variety of types of assumptions that may skew their reasoning and thus any decisions or conclusions. The purpose of a discussion may not be equally clear to all participants, including the role each participant will be expected to play in any further decision-making or implementation. Types of assumptions also include those made about the participants own abilities and intentions as well as the abilities and intentions of others involved. Fact must be distinguished from opinion. Assumptions about mental models or conceptual frameworks may not be in sync with others related to a project or they may not be appropriate to the decision at hand. The source, type, and amount of data or information that is useful or necessary for a given action to be taken also play a role. Even the question or problem at hand must be clearly articulated and agreed upon in order to satisfy a good decision-making process. In the case of the Ethnomusicology Training Consultation, several participants articulated faulty assumptions that they had been making until they discussed them in the consultation with one another. They had been trying to accommodate all that they had learned in various workshops where they had been trained, but the reality was that some aspects of what they had learned were more valuable for their village programs than others, and some were not really applicable or helpful at all, especially not to all the different groups in a community. For example, logistics coordinators do not need to know how to write songs or record them, nor do local pastors 5

need to copy CDs or distinguish all types of local music in order to fulfill their role effectively. Similarly, just because the music training team created local music CDs with village musicians, this did not necessarily result in widespread use by the local people for whom they were intended. Thus, a big assumption that they eventually dismantled was that everything about ethnomusicology is for everyone. 2. Evaluate arguments: During the consultation, the technicians who participated experienced a conflict of emotions as they thought through what could make a local music program sustainable. The technicians had been trained and highly motivated to use some sophisticated and recently developed technologies. However, when they considered the level of appropriate technology for some of the mountain provinces where they worked, they concluded that the use of heavy electronic equipment was not practical. At the same time they discovered that some simpler, lighter equipment, like smartphones and small video cameras were perfect for creating music media that the villagers could enjoy and replicate. They were at first very disappointed that some of the shiny new toys they had planned on using were not going to work, let alone be transportable, to some rather inaccessible regions. On the other hand, on reflection about what this meant, they were thrilled that they could leave the burden of fascinating, but fairly useless, equipment behind! One technician commented, tongue-in-cheek, This process of facilitation ruined my life and I am SO glad! During the Domains of Language Use discovery tool, many of the participants recognized that though they were committed to promoting the use of indigenous music styles, there were also regional, and even international influences on certain types of music in their communities through radio, TV, films, etc. Rather than ignoring these types of non-indigenous popular music, the group came to appreciate the validity of exploring their uses for worship and evangelism as well. For some, this created emotional tensions, yet ultimately a shift in their viewpoint. At the same time, all were amazed at the rich variety of local genres available and were inspired to try these out for different scriptural uses. Besides songs and psalms of praise, the group also discovered a genre for strengthening specific familial relationships and another for relating ancient household histories, both of which could well be used to express biblical truths naturally within the culture explored. By opening themselves up to a full range of music presently used within a given community they discovered both new indigenous possibilities as well as the potential for also encouraging some non-indigenous styles. 3. Draw conclusions: The most significant conclusion the participants drew during the week was that they had the expertise within their own number to work with all their local communities to develop appropriate Christian music. Together they reviewed the steps of a strategic model that they had already encountered earlier and were using to develop sustainability in their local projects: 1) discovering common vision, 2) building relationships, 3) developing skills, 4) 6

creating a supporting organizational structure, and 5) accessing necessary finances (Robinson, 1998). They essentially recommitted themselves to working WITH local communities, rather than simply loading them with outside expectations, processes, and products, now specifically in relation to music development. Second, they examined the social structures common to their local communities and simplified the music development training to fit the various roles that different groups play within those communities. Rather than expecting, as they had in the past, that the whole church or local Christian community should spend days and days learning about making music, they divided up the training according to the roles different groups would play and created short lists of topics that would be most essential for each group to play their roles effectively. At this point, the participants in the consultation broke into small design teams to develop the first sets of training for the role that they knew best. The technicians created a lesson for basic recording skills, while a group of Language Program managers adapted a lesson for song-writers on using a Scripture text for lyrics. Another small team designed a lesson on managing logistics for a musical performance. And another team created a vision-awareness module for local pastors. Each of these teams then briefly presented their lesson design and received further input from the rest of the group. This process allowed them to further learn from and help each other. Since one of their biggest frustrations had been a lack of communication between the music specialists and technicians with the field teams, this kind of interaction encouraged them and motivated them to develop further ways of continuing their communication, including a Dropbox to share all their lessons and a common calendar to share when and where they would be holding future training events. One may define critical thinking as a means of bringing about the best decision for the best overall good. It requires a willingness to question ones assumptions and look at things from a variety of points of view. Critical thinking also demands that one set aside ones emotional attachments to certain ways of viewing a situation, how it came about, and what the logical outcomes of different courses of action might be. The participatory tools that were used created a structured and safe environment for questioning assumptions, evaluating the various points of view, and creating new solutions. The participatory processes used in the Ethnomusicology Training Consultation brought various assumptions about what an indigenous music program should look like to light. By exploring both successes and frustrations, participants from across India learned what they had in common as well as points on which they initially disagreed. They evaluated together aspects that seemed to work and those that did not. They also confronted their own emotions, biases, and pre-conceived ideas. Finally, they generated some powerful solutions to their local training approach, discarding elements of their program that were not likely to work, and most importantly, learned to listen to and share more productively with one another. As this process 7

flourished, they expressed how much they learned from one another and how they wanted to continue doing so. In the discussion of this case study at the BT2013 conference session, the participants listed ways in which the participatory approach to the EM consultation helped its members think critically: it structured their interaction, described needs as well as previous actions, identified appropriate categories for attention, prioritized issues and problems to be solved, clarified issues, customized plans, elicited feedback, built confidence, stimulated creative thinking, included more people in the process, opened new options, and helped the participants decide to stop doing certain things. Back to the Action-Reflection Cycle The ethnomusicology consultation participants went from Reflecting on their previous plans and actions in the field to Deciding how to restructure their training to the Action of listing, then designing new lessons, and then back to more Reflection in their feedback sessions as a group. They went full circle from Doing and Observing their earlier workshops to Describing, then to Evaluating back to Deciding and then Doing again. Through this process they also came to anticipate and appreciate that they could continue to engage in the Action-Reflection Cycle (also called Experiential Learning Cycle) in the future in order to build on their growing experience. A Case Study on Involving Pastors with the Acceptance and Use of a New Testament Translation In order for new Bible translations to achieve impact in their target communities, it is important for pastors and Christian leaders in those communities to accept and support the use of those Scriptures. (Landin, 1990). In 2010 in South Asia, the New Testament translation in V. was nearing completion. (See Appendix 4). Although 15 million people speak V., there are only a few hundred Christians, all of whom used regional languages in church and family devotions. One V. pastor began translating into his mother tongue in 2001 and was later joined by two nonmother tongue translation colleagues. However, interest for the V. translation was still minimal even after the NT had been finished and consultant approved. Two meetings were held for V. pastors to introduce them to the translation, yet with no apparent increase in enthusiasm. As the translation team prepared a third pastors meeting, a colleague encouraged them to try a participatory approach rather than the earlier presentation style. Another colleague who was experienced in leading participatory discussions joined the local translation team to help facilitate those parts of the meeting. In the meeting, the nineteen pastors and lay leaders attending first worked through a tool called Overlapping Circles to describe which subgroups of V. speakers speak the regional 8

language well and which speak V. well. Next they used the Cause-Effect Tree to analyze why the regional languages are used in the churches. Finally they used Appreciative Inquiry to list the good things that they saw God was doing among V. speakers and to make decisions and plan for the future. Through this process of sharing observations together and analyzing what they were observing, they began to recognize that some of their assumptions had been biased and inaccurate. They had not previously questioned the use of a majority language in their spiritual ministry, yet now one commented, We need to use more V. so that women and children understand. They began to recognize that using only a majority language would limit the range of people who could be touched by the Gospel. As the facts emerged about how V. is used by the full range of its speakers, old opinions faded. They began to value V. as a language that God would use to change peoples lives. The prestige that using the regional language carried was now counter balanced by the communicative power that V. could exert. The pastors were urging one another to a new vision of how V. Scriptures would strengthen their ministries. One pastor suggested, A V. Bible school would help us use V. more in church. As they discussed their new observations, they came up with action plans. They wanted to increase the use of V. in church, create and record V. songs, make a V. newsletter, produce a V. calendar, and translate Genesis and Psalms in addition to the recently completed New Testament. They formed small groups to plan how they would undertake these goals and contributed their own funds to that purpose. They also decided that each of them would spend time in the next four weeks to review the New Testament V. translation. The pastors returned the following meeting, having reviewed their assigned sections of the translation and giving their approval for its publication. Most no longer requested reimbursement to attend the meetings as they had before. They also voluntarily stayed on past the scheduled meeting times, and at least one offered his own church for future meetings. The V. pastors themselves grew in their newly found sense of confidence that they could improve their ministries through this process. They became more committed to using their own language more intentionally and discerning when it would be effective. They experienced that they could question how things had always been (Recognize assumptions), talk about strategic issues (Evaluate arguments) and solve problems together, making important changes for the future (Draw Conclusions). In this way, the pastors growing critical thinking skills contributed strongly to bringing about decisions for the best overall good. 9

A Few More Examples Although we have only touched on two examples of how a participatory approach has increased critical thinking skills in members of their respective groups, many others could also be listed. In the research of Bettina Gottschlich-Modibale in the Democratic Republic of Congo, for example, she discovered how the formation and interaction of focus-groups regarding the use of Scripture in the Butu church not only revealed new ways for the church leaders and members to think about their ministries, but by participating in their meetings they themselves became motivated to create their own action plans for increasing scripture engagement (2012, pp. 164 ff.). In the Spice Islands (Maluku) of Indonesia, twelve local pastors recently took part in a course on how to improve their ministries by using a more participatory approach. They are now bringing the suggestion to their annual denominational meetings to offer this training to pastors in every classis, and are offering to help facilitate this. One has already made good progress translating a difficult resource textbook to aid the process (Ronna Karasih and David M. Moore, personal communication, 2013). I have repeatedly experienced how language program managers and other translation personnel mature in their abilities, not only to participate in effective community critical thinking but then to lead the facilitation of participatory processes. When I asked one Indonesian colleague how he had learned to facilitate what turned into a very effective discussion, he answered, I watched the rest of you. My expectations of him had certainly been too low! At the time he was the teams errand runner; now he facilitates a language project himself. He grew substantially in his own personal critical thinking skills by joining and observing his peers in participatory processes. When we asked the group of Bible translation specialists at the BT conference mentioned above to list aspects of the translation process in which critical thinking contributes positively, their list included the choice of translators, planning the project, textual criticism, exegesis, and choice of key terms, creating comprehension questions, evaluating feedback from community checks, reflecting on ones own culture as compared to other cultures, determining methods for distribution, and even speaking up for oneself in disagreement with a consultant. As they reflected on the potential for how a participatory approach could impact critical thinking in their own projects, they suggested including group learning in our training practices, holding team checks for exegesis, and holding pastors meetings regarding the translation project and processes in order to build greater local ownership. A participatory approach can stimulate growth in the critical thinking of all who participate, regardless of their culture of origin or educational background. By respecting the commitment, 10

gifts, and unique viewpoints of our colleagues worldwide, each one grows in thinking critically and serving more effectively.

Bibliography Clark, D. (1999) Big dog and little dogs performance juxtaposition. Blooms taxonomy of learning domains. Retrieved from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html#revised. Foundation for Critical Thinking. The thinkers guide to analytic thinking: Analyze a problem using the elements and standards. Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/defining-critical-thinking. Giezendanner, J.G. (2014, pending publication) Die Letzten werden die Ersten sein. Fiftieth anniversary book of Wycliffe Switzerland. Gottschlich, B. (2012) Transformational scripture engagement among the Budu of Congo Kinshasa. [Doctoral dissertation]. Pasadena, CA: Fuller Theological Seminary, School of Intercultural Studies. Hasselbring, S. (2007) Participatory methods for engaging communities (A course in using a participatory approach for fieldwork). Asia Area Sociolinguistics: SIL. Kolb, D. A. and Fry, R. (1975) Toward an applied theory of experiential learning. C. Cooper (ed.), Theories of Group Process, London: John Wiley. Kumar, S. (2002) Methods for community participation: A complete guide for practitioners. New Delhi, India: Vistaar Publications. Lojenga, C.K. (1996) Participatory research in linguistics. Notes on Linguistics Vol. 73(2) 13-27. Dallas, TX: SIL. Landin, D. (1990) Some factors which influence acceptance of vernacular scriptures. Notes on Scripture in Use and Language Programs #24: Acceptance of Vernacular Language Scriptures. 4-22. Dallas, TX: SIL. Pearson TalentLens. Pearson Education, Inc. (2012) RED model of critical thinking. Retrieved from http://www.thinkwatson.com/think-red/red-critical-thinking-model. 11

Robinson, C. (1998) Planning for sustainability: A preliminary overview. Notes on Sociolinguistics 3(3). 143151. Dallas, TX: SIL. Stanfield, R. B., ed. (2000) The Art of focused conversation: 100 ways to access group wisdom in the workplace (ICA series) Common.

12

Appendix 1 Event Name: BT Conference 2013: Promoting Excellence in Bible Translation Thinking Critically, Together: A Contribution of a Participatory Approach Module Title are the teachers and what are their 1. Who are the learners and what do you know about them that influences what should be included Who roles? What does each contribute? and how the module should be taught? (motivation, knowledge, or experience that can be built upon)

40+ people attending the BT 2013 conference who are interested in helping national team members grow in critical-thinking, self-selected participation Many will have a first look at participatory methods; others with more exposure may be the ones most likely to attend the session Most will know something about critical-thinking Most participants will have extensive experience in language programs. Some will have taken Learning that LASTS so will be aware of participatory ways of teaching and learning A few will have attended a PMEC workshop. Some will be non-native speakers of English A few may be Deaf. The BT 2013 organizer indicated that more organizations are represented so far among participants than at previous conferences. Number of session participants is hard to determine in advance. Conference registration continued to grow up until last minute. This session is scheduled at the end of the last day of the conference, so some variation to presentation style will probably be quite welcome: Color, dialog, action

Facilitators:

Jenny and S.

2. Why is this specific module/lesson needed? What is the situation calling for this session to be taught? WHO needs WHAT? Who says that they need that? The Before Picture.

The conference organizers included Critical Thinking as one sub-theme under the theme Workforce and Training. Much interest was expressed when two papers on participatory methods were presented at BT 2011. Participatory discussions help groups to think critically. Participatory methods training helps those trained grow as critical thinkers. Many do not know that these latter two connections exist. Many BT leaders believe that the development of critical thinking skills would benefit BT projects. At times they may think more in individualistic terms rather than maximizing the benefits of collective or communal practices.

3. What Evidence do you expect to see that shows learning has taken place? The After Picture. Evidence of Learning: What will the participants learn, in terms of Attitudes, Skills, and Knowledge, and what will they have done (action verbs) by the end of this learning module to show they have learned the material?

By the end of this module, participants will... Brainstorm aspects of a BT program where critical thinking is beneficial. Share and write the types of roles of people who would engage in critical thinking for these actions, then match them to the relevant activities. Describe what Critical Thinkers do (elements of CT) when they think critically. Compare their descriptions of CT with a well-known model, and sort /match their factors within that model. Read aloud a definition of a Participatory Approach (Optional) List topics where they have been involved with a Participatory Approach Look at a diagram of the Action-Reflection Cycle and listen to short description Listen to, read along, mark, and discuss two case studies where CT increased due to a PA. Consider their own projects and mention where they would like to increase critical thinking through a participatory approach.

13

Evidence of Transfer: By [date: usually 1 week to 6 months after learning event] the learners will have (How will they be working differently?)

Evidence of Impact: What impact within and outside their organization do we expect to see?

4. Where? Location and details of the room/s: e.g. seating arrangements, equipment needed, etc.

5. When? Duration, time

List action steps leading to this. Discuss remaining questions or concerns. Shared with one or two others about the connection between participatory methods and critical thinking. Chosen an issue and begun planning a facilitated discussion with a trained facilitator Asked presenters of this paper and leaders in their organizations and entities about upcoming PMEC and LtL workshops Begun to plan for a PMEC and/or LtL workshop if none is already in the planning stages Used an action / reflection cycle exercise with a team with which they work. All translation personnel are growing in critical -thinking Project personnel, local and outsiders, are leading and participating in participatory discussions. Project personnel, both local and outsiders, use a greater variety of participatory discussions in appropriate ways in more aspects of translation work. The sense of ownership of a project grows, especially amongst local people Mahler 7 Classroom with about It will cost registration 5. How 100 chairs set up in as much of a much will this fees and airfares for S. U-shape as possible, a power point module cost and and Jenny. Perhaps some projector, a large screen, several minor material costs. how will it be whiteboards across one side of the paid for? room, little room to rearrange chairs. The chairs are lined up in rows to start out. Use wall/whiteboard space for the C1 and following participatory processes, with posters, yarn, colored papers, post-its etc. Title written on both side Whiteboards. Remove podium, front table and other excess furniture from room. Sequence: (How Tuesday, Sept 14, 2013 There is a poster is this module 3:20-4:05 presentation about PM connected to 45 min. 5 min intro by chair, 30 used to engage with other modules?) min presentation, 10 min for language communities as questions. We have some language programs are freedom to adjust. started by Matt C. This will be Saturday night, before our session. Min

7. How will the learning take place? Learning Tasks written as instructions for the learner, relevant to the WHY, WHO and WHERE Connection

Materials Needed & Teacher Notes

S. Today we look at the way the use of a participatory approach can contribute to improving critical thinking in individuals and groups. Let's first answer together: "Why do we value Critical Thinking and desire for participants in a BT project to develop their CT skills?" Lets brainstorm some aspects of translation work which benefit from critical thinking. As people name them, a couple volunteers will write the ideas on these 8 Flip chart, markers (black and blue) S. Strips of colored

14

strips of paper. (Participants discuss and scribe. After about 20-30 ideas...) Let's pause here. It seems you could have come up with many more. Now lets think about WHO would need to do critical thinking about each aspect. We have some paper with borders and some loops. 1. 2. 3. 4. As you name a role for a person or group of persons, write that on one of these papers. Put all the aspects that that group would need to think about inside one circle with this label. Use other labels and circles for other groups. The circles can overlap. (Let them go for it.) Lets return to share what weve noticed. (Call them back at the 7 minute point to resume at 8 min.)

paper S.

You have shown that ideally many people need to do much critical thinking in BT work. Let's think more about what critical thinking is.

Content

JENNY What would you say are some elements or components of good critical thinking? Name or describe what critical thinkers do when they think critically. Discuss this with 3-4 others near you and (each group) write 3-6 elements or components of critical thinking, one per post-it. (Post A-3 instrux.) You have 2 min. [3] Lets look together at a current model that describes Critical Thinking and compare what we have listed to this simple model: [2] RED Critical Thinking Model, by Pearson Recognize Assumptions Evaluate Arguments Draw Conclusions Look again at your post-its: A few volunteers can now sort our post-its according to these three stages of Critical Thinking Which of your post-its are an aspect of Recognizing Assumptions? Which of your post-its are an aspect of Evaluating arguments? Which are an aspect of Drawing conclusions? What others do you have that do not fit any of these or overlap more than one category? [3 total] S. In this session we are exploring together the influences that a Participatory Approach has on developing critical thinking, particularly in field projects. So, now lets consider the description of a Participatory Approach: Who would like to read aloud a definition of Participatory Approaches (from PMEC banner/poster? Also on handout.) [1] A participatory approach helps people to think and talk together in order to 10

Mini (A3) poster: <Write 3-6 elements or components of critical thinking, one per post-it.> post-its Jenny, markers S.

Simple poster with diagram of RED model Jenny

15

describe and analyze their situation, decide what to do, plan how to do it and evaluate what has been done. A participatory approach helps those who will benefit from activities to have a key role in all aspects of those activities. The activities we just did about aspects of translation work which benefit from critical thinking and your description of Critical Thinking are an example of a participatory process in which describing and analyzing occurred.

Handout with PA/PM definition Banner definition of Participatory Approach S.

Optional, depending on time available: Based on this definition of a Participatory Approach, what topics come to your mind where you have been involved in such a process? Let's list a few of those topics. (They call out their answers, perhaps we scribe.) [2] As we train people in using a Participatory Approach, we use the Action Reflection cycle (show poster of the A-R cycle.) Some participatory discussions focus on observing/noticing the current situation, others focus on analyzing the current situation more deeply looking at influences, beliefs and consequences, other discussions focus on Making decisions and planning. Some participatory approaches help a group to do something like develop an alphabet or select the translation team. (Other times the action will not be participatory - such as an individual typing in translated materials. But every action, whether participatory or not, might be followed by participatory evaluation which involves observing the current situation and analyzing it.) [1] Challenge

Poster of ActionReflection Cycle S.

JENNY We would now like to share two case studies with you that exemplify the use of a participatory approach. As you listen to these case studies, make note or underline on your handout ways in which the Participatory approach affected the groups critical thinking. (Post A-3 instrux.) Case Study of Indian Ethnomusicology Training Preparation [4] As you consider this case study, how do you see critical thinking encouraged as this group was involved in Participatory discussions? [3] S. Case Study of V. Translation Team and Local Pastors [4] 15 Mini (A3) poster: <What are ways in which the participatory approach affected the groups critical thinking?> Handouts for each case study: -EM Training project -V. Translation project

As you consider this case study, how do you see critical thinking encouraged as this community was involved in Participatory discussions? [3] Now lets move from these two case studies to thinking about how a participatory approach and critical thinking apply to your situations. [1]

Change

S. (cont.) See your handout: 1. How might using a Participatory Approach influence critical thinking in

5

16

a project you are familiar with? 2. What action steps might you want to take to increase critical thinking through participatory interactions where you work? Take just a moment to discuss this with your neighbor. [4] Lets share a couple of your ideas. (Scribe.) [1] Closure

JENNY What questions or comments do you have? Discussion. Possible question to stimulate discussion: What do you see as some of the assumptions on which a participatory approach is based? What are your thoughts and feelings about this?

5

17

Appendix 2

Thinking Critically, Together: A Contribution of a Participatory Approach By Jennifer Giezendanner and S., October 15, 2013 Bible Translation Conference 2013, Dallas, Texas HANDOUT Model of Critical-thinking RED Critical Thinking Model, by Pearson Recognize Assumptions Evaluate Arguments

Draw Conclusions http://www.thinkwatson.com/think-red/red-critical-thinking-model

Definition of Participatory Approach A participatory approach helps people to think and talk together in order to describe and analyze their situation, decide what to do, plan how to do it and evaluate what has been done. A participatory approach helps those who will benefit from activities to have a key role in all aspects of those activities. Action-Reflection Cycle

Discussion Questions - discuss this with your neighbor. 1. How might using a Participatory Approach influence critical thinking in a project you are familiar with? 2. What action steps might you want to take to increase critical thinking through participatory interactions where you work?

18

Appendix 3 Case Study of a Participatory Consultation on Developing Local Christian Music in Ethnic Communities of India By Jennifer Giezendanner 1. Problem: In October 2012, twelve members of an Indian mission engaged in Bible translation met for four days to discuss the appropriate integration of Christian music in the local communities they serve. A few were ethnomusicologists and technicians. The rest were field project managers. All had tried to integrate musicmaking into their programs by holding large local Ethnomusicology workshops but felt they were falling short. The workshops were energizing but also very demanding and expensive, and the local people did not always welcome these events. 2. Process: Throughout the consultation we basically followed the steps of a Focused Conversation.1 Objective Look at the facts, what do we know? Reflective- How do we feel about what weve observed? Interpretive What does this mean? What is helping us and blocking us? Decisional What are the next best action steps? The participants first described the trends they saw in their locations. Then they shared their hopes and desires for the development of local Christian music. This also brought out their frustrations. Some song CDs had been created, but the use of indigenous music for worship or evangelism had not taken root locally. They felt the present training wasnt making the difference that they desired. Next we analyzed the various roles needed for a successful local music movement. Through a Stakeholder Analysis they identified five major categories: Key Decision-Makers, Local Music-Makers, Technicians, Administrative/Logistical Coordinators, and the Beneficiaries. By separating out these roles, the group recognized they could greatly simplify the training by developing lessons specifically for each role. The group then broke into working groups by areas of expertise and began describing the training needed for their category. Most of these lists of training topics were surprisingly short. The technicians had the longest list, so they divided it into basic training and advanced topics. Each group designed or adapted a lesson for their category and presented it for feedback to the others. The teams also explored types of occasions where music could potentially be used. They tested a new Domains of Music Use tool for discovering the range of genres of music in use by a specific community. Finally, they listed their action steps for continuing lesson development, sharing what they were developing and learning, created a Dropbox and a group calendar. They identified further problems to solve, noting down responsible persons and completion dates. They also explored other ways of encouraging local music

1

The Art of Focused Conversation: 100 Ways to Access Group Wisdom in the Workplace (ICA series) Common, by R. Brian Stanfield (Editor) 2000.

19

development that went beyond training. They grew in confidence in their own abilities to analyze, decide, and act effectively throughout. 3. Progress: What did they stop doing? They stopped using some high-tech equipment that they had been given. They stopped holding generic ethnomusicology workshops for whole communities. They stopped using full curriculum created by others, though they did borrow and adapt many of their lesson plans. They also recognized that indigenous music might not appeal to all members of an ethnic community. They stopped depending on outsiders to define what they should accomplish. Since the consultation ended, I have continued to receive reports from its participants. They continue to develop and share lesson plans, hold music workshops and one-on-one training, and see local communities write, sing, and record music for themselves. They continue to listen, analyze, and adjust their activities according to what they are learning.

20

Appendix 4 Facilitation with V. Pastors in South Asia By S. In 2010, the V. New Testament had been consultant checked, but the three-member translation team was concerned that if the 20 V. pastors did not give their approval for printing, it would not be used. The pastors had expressed little interest in the work or in the V. materials already available. The team concluded that the pastors did not care about the V. language or their own people. The translation team had started with an MTT in 2001 and added two other non-V. national workers. Over the previous few months, the team had already held two meetings in which they tried to convince the pastors of the need to use V. and the importance of the translation. However, interest remained low. Among the 15 million V., only about 200 were Christian. Because the V. pastors work in urban churches which have people from many languages, the regional language of wider communication is used in church services. A colleague suggested that the team's next meeting with pastors use a participatory approach so the pastors could think through the issues themselves and draw their own conclusions. While planning for the meeting, the team and the outside facilitator recognised that the pastors would likely desire to at least postpone the publication of the New Testament. The team agreed that they would abide by the decisions of the pastors. Several pastors had other obligations or had said they could not attend, but while 11 participants were expected 19 attended, including some lay leaders. Three tools were used: Overlapping Circles to describe the languages V. people speak well, Cause and Effect Tree to analyze why the regional language of wider communication is used in churches and Appreciative Inquiry to discuss good things already happening and to plan for the future. The pastors sat in a semi-circle and developed paper diagrams on the floor as they talked. While describing together how women and other subgroups of V. speak V. only, one pastor concluded, "We need to use more V. in the church so women and children understand!" While analyzing what caused the pastors to use the regional language, another pastor concluded, "A V. Bible school would help us use V. more in church". After considering the current situation and the causes and effects of their actions to date, the pastors decided that they should use more V. in church services, create and record V. songs, increase the translation efforts, make a V. calendar, and produce a V. church newsletter. They met in small groups to develop action plans to implement some of these decisions. They also identified what they felt were some problems with the translation. They committed to reviewing more Scriptures passages before a follow-up meeting a month later. At that meeting, after more review and dialogue, they concluded that the decisions made by the translator were the best and they approved the printing of the translation. Unlike previous meetings, the participatory meeting concluded with the pastors staying longer to finish crucial discussions, voluntarily not accepting travel reimbursement, and offering their congregations as a venue for future meetings. The team realized that they needed to adjust some of their earlier assumptions and conclusions. The pastors and lay people, through thinking together about their language situation and the translation itself, grew in their awareness and understanding and in their commitment. 21