View the


ACTIVE Reviewing Tips
for dynamic experiential learning

How to
for free

Reviewing for Teams

Roger Greenaway's Active Reviewing Tips 9.3 ~ ISSN 1465-8046
A free monthly publication from Reviewing Skills Training

ARTips 9.3  Reviewing for Teams


The previous issue 'Reviewing for All' is now at



Do you ever press 'send' and wish you hadn't?

I had that feeling on sending out Reviewing For All last month. I
was quite pleased with what I sent out but I missed a connection
with an article of mine published 10 years ago called 'High
Quality Adventure FOR ALL'.

Whether or not outdoor adventure is part of your work, the basic
message applies - that 'high quality for all' applies to the
whole learning process and not just to the reflective part. But I
do still have a hunch that 9 times out of 10 it is the reflective
part of the process that is the least inclusive. In which case I
hope at least 9 out of 10 readers found some useful ideas in the
last issue about Reviewing for All.

If you happen to be an outdoor educator committed to equal
opportunities, take a look at High Quality Adventure for All


The NEWS sections include:

- details of a 2 day open Reviewing Skills Training at the end of
January. Book by Thursday 13th December!

- details of other training events coming up in early 2008.

- the birth of a new announcement list 'EXPERIENTIAL-CPD' that
will keep you up to date with training events for experiential
facilitators in the UK. Free announcements for all providers of
events that qualify. Try it out (leaving the list is even easier
than joining it).
Go to http://reviewing.co.uk (panel top left)

This issue of ACTIVE REVIEWING TIPS is the 5th in a series:

  1. Reviewing for Development
  2. Reviewing for Fun
  3. Reviewing for Results
  4. Reviewing for All
  5. Reviewing for Teams *this issue*
  6. Reviewing for Beginners (next issue)

REVIEWING FOR TEAMS will help you choose the reviewing methods
that will give you most chance of success in helping a team to be
more successful in what they do. They are mostly fun ways of
achieving serious goals.

This issue is also the 3rd part of my DYNAMIC DEBRIEFING series
in which I integrate experiential learning theory with
facilitation theory to produce a model of dynamic debriefing that
is about:

- sequencing questions
- keeping all learners engaged
- capturing the rhythm of learning and change.
- focused questioning.
- keeping in touch with learners' motivations.
- valuing learners' experience during the debrief.
- keeping the learning process moving.
- working with whole persons throughout the debrief.
- discouraging a routine approach to a dynamic phenomenon.


Thanks you for suggestions received so far for future titles
which include:
  1. Reviewing for Leaders
  2. Reviewing for Doers/Activists (Reluctant Reflectors)
  3. Reviewing for Mobile Devices (actually a request for handy checklists)
  4. Reviewing for ____ ?

Please fill in the blank with what you want! My contact details
are at the end of this ezine. Yes - you can influence what
appears in Active Reviewing Tips!

You can even directly contribute your own ideas. One way of doing
so is via the recently reopened Active Reviewing Exchange. ARTips
Exchange (as it is also known) is a moderated discussion group
You can learn more about it (and join) by visiting
http://reviewing.co.uk and clicking the link in the top left

Whether you join the group or write directly to me at
roger@reviewing.co.uk I look forward to hearing from you.

Roger Greenaway


After this introduction, 'Reviewing for Teams' becomes more of an
index than an article - because almost every reviewing technique
in previous issues and at http://reviewing.co.uk can be used (or
adapted) for facilitating reviewing for teams. This article tells
you how to do so - or sets you off in a fruitful direction.

As a title, 'Reviewing for Teams' is deliberately broad. It
could, for example, encompass any or all of the following:

  • Facilitating group development
  • Facilitating team learning
  • Facilitating team development
  • Facilitating team building
  • Facilitating team meetings
  • Facilitating teamwork
  • Developing each individual's teamworking skills so that they can readily play a useful role in any team
  • Facilitating organisation development (big teams!)

And then there is the question of the nature of the team:

- Is it large or small?
- Do they work closely or remotely?
- What values do they share?
- How do they see themselves as a team?
- How are they seen by others?
- What range of tasks do they perform?
- How (if at all) do responsibilities rotate?
- What do they regard as team success?
- How are they rewarded for team success?
- How do they relate to other teams?
- How do they cope with problems? (internal and external)
- How do they make decisions?
- What kind of leadership works best for the team?
- What team habits help and hinder their performance?
- How does the team learn from experience?

15 questions will do for now! - enough to show that there are so
many variables that any standardised team development programme
is unlikely to match the particular needs of a particular team at
a particular stage in its life.

Fortunately you can find out most of what you need to know about
a team through reviewing. No team is likely to reach an agreed
set of answers to the (fairly random) 15 questions above. And if
a team is continually developing, the answers will be continually
changing - which is half the fun of working with teams!

The article below will help you choose the reviewing methods that
will give you most chance of success in helping a team to be more
successful in what they do. They are mostly fun ways of achieving
serious goals.

Please tell me if I have achieved my goal of helping you to
review with teams.


Some of the 15 question above can be part of a training needs
analysis that you carry out on the way towards constructing a
training programme and reviewing strategy. But a training needs
analysis is itself a reviewing process. In a sense, reviewing
begins with your very first question - at which point there may
no certainty that a training programme will happen. You need to
think through which review questions are best asked in advance
and which review questions are best saved until the programme
officially begins - if it happens.


If a team is a group with a task or objective, then a logical
point for a team review to begin is with the objective. This is
what the 'After Action Review' is good for:


''AARs are a simple way for individuals and teams to learn
immediately, from both successes and failures ... the format is
very simple and quick ... In an open and honest meeting, usually
no longer than twenty minutes, each participant in the event
answers four simple questions:

1) What was supposed to happen?
2) What actually happened?
3) Why were there differences?
4) What did we learn?

... Our experience was that the simplicity of the process and the
low time requirements were key to its acceptance.''

Chris Collison and Geoff Parcell in 'Learning to Fly' (2001:78)

There is a lot to recommend the After Action Review especially
its simplicity. But this simplicity has a price:

1) The AAR focus on task achievement can produce good effects in
the short and medium term, but the overall reviewing strategy
should also include space for team and individual development.
[This is the task-team-individual balance underlying John Adair's
Action Centred Leadership model (ACL).]

2) The simplicity, brevity and pace of an AAR review does not
allow for in-depth reviewing - although the 'why?' question can
pick up the need for a deeper review. [If 8 people have 4
questions to answer in less than 20 minutes and the facilitator
speaks for, say, 4 minutes, that allows 30 seconds per answer.]

3) Look at question 4 above ('What did we learn?') - the AAR
draws together learning that has ALREADY happened: the review
itself is not seen as an opportunity for NEW learning (other than
learning about what someone else has already learned).

4) The opening question 'What was supposed to happen?' has the
merit of getting straight to the point (and resonates well with
its origins in the US military). But just in case that question
(or the others) don't suit the occasion, you may want an
alternative to the useful but limited routine of AAR.

This article continues as an annotated index to alternative
methods for reviewing with teams. Some familiar methods are
presented in a new light. And where my own descriptions are thin,
I have provided you with links to other sources.


Especially - what did WE do well?

A symbol representing the success is placed in the middle of the
floor. Big labels of all the contributing factors are created to
surround it. These factors also had causes which are also
labelled etc. (Doesn't work so well when the fans are turning!)

Take any factor from the above two exercises and ask how well did
we (or you individually) do in relation to this factor.
See the second activity in this article:

An observation system that is readily adapted for team goals. The
team first establishes, say, 9 goals and 3 observers flash one of
their three goal cards to any team member who needs reminding or
congratulating. Search this page for 'jogger' (its original name)

Some teams will simply enjoy replaying the best moments (as a way
of celebrating success). Ideally they will also want to replay
moments they were dissatisfied with. This apparently playful
technique can be really effective at bringing problems into a
sharp focus - and learning from them.


An intuitive and logical way of moving a team forwards.
See the 11th activity in this article:
Or try one of my variations: The Outsider

Only described here in outline - but that might be enough.

Very familiar to readers of Active Reviewing Tips. It is so handy
that it is best reserved for key team issues on which there is
likely to be a significant spread of opinion.
See the third activity in this article:

Alternative views of the team as it is now or as we'd like it to
be are discussed in a way in which everyone sees and speaks from
each of the views. It works well in combination with Horseshoe
e.g. if using Horseshoe before and after to see what indiviudals
really think.

There is no description on reviewing.co.uk but I have contributed
to the first two below:
and this is an interesting variation I'd like to try:

A simple tool. I prefer just to put them on display (like a photo
display) rather than attempt discussing them. Words don't
necessarily add value to good pictures (or diagrams).

In the right hands (qualified ones) this provides a useful way of
helping individuals think about the team as a whole and their
role within it. In the wrong hands people might walk around for
years with self-limiting labels - whether kept in place by
themselves or by their stale, unimaginative colleagues.

In my experience, teams only sometimes go through these stages,
but there are occasions where this perspective on group
development may help a team through hard times - if used wisely.

Many critics have pointed out that it is unhelpful for teams to
adopt unsuitable metaphors from the sports world (or any world)
even if they do make a refreshing change from naval and military
metaphors / clichés embedded in workspeak - welcome aboard, all
hands on deck, let's pull together, scan the horizon ... But
because teams can be so complex, finding an apt metaphor can
really help people communicate about how they see the nature and
essence of a team. So, for a change of metaphor, try...
Tuning into the Music of Groups: A Metaphor for Team-Based
Learning in Management Education.
Metaphors we organize by


This follows on from teamwork metaphors. It involves each team
member demonstrating (with the whole team) their own values and
aspirations about good teamwork.

The team version involves everyone thinking about what from the
past and present will help them achieve their objective.


One of many ways of noticing, giving and receiving positive

Good for team leader feedback if the question is a good one:
Alternatively try:

This is a less direct form of feedback and it is a reminder that
feedback is not necessarily just about good/bad judgements. This
method gets round defensiveness (or reluctance to criticise)
while also providing useful feedback.

This is a quick way for everyone to receive face to face one to
one feedback - based on the carefully chosen questions that they
want to ask. It is helpful for everyone to read out their
questions in advance. This also allows the facilitator (and the
team) to suggest better questions if anyone is asking questions
that are unlikely to give them valuable and balanced feedback.


This exercise allows the team to walk through and experience
their own Force Field Analysis or SWOT diagram. It makes the
paper exercise much more real - sometimes too real.

A team that has been together for a while can use this reviewing
exercise to learn from the past and move on - especially suitable
between projects or before a major change.

Everyone's pictures of the future (for the team) can be compared
and assembled. To prevent artist's block, partners listen and
draw their partner's dream out of sight of the person describing
their dream (e.g. back to back).

And to avoid artist's block altogether ask: In three years from
now, if the strategy is successful, what does our team /
organisation look like - and where are you in this picture? Ask
participants to each choose an image from a stimulating variety
of picture postcards.

Remember: Please tell me if I have achieved my goal of helping
you to review with teams. If you want to discuss your ideas with
others, view the 'interactive' option: No.3 just below.

~ 3 ~ FREE 4 FACILITATORS: 4 lists 4 you

NEW: EXPERIENTIAL-CPD is a brand new announcement list for UK
events. See option 4 below.

INTERACTIVE: If you want to discuss reviewing ideas with other
subscribers choose option 3 below.


Active Reviewing Tips for Dynamic Experiential Learning
A free newsletter to recharge your reviewing and facilitation
skills maximum frequency: monthly
  • a practical feature on reviewing tips
  • links to sites about active learning methods
  • tips, comments and ideas from readers
  • what's new in the Guide to Active Reviewing
  • dates for Roger's open workshops


Adventure Plus
Adventure and Experiential Education SiteFinder Ezine
Free site reviews for outdoor educators, trainers and researchers
maximum frequency: monthly
  • reviews of adventure-plus websites
  • the 'hows' and 'whys' of experiential learning
  • how to find or promote adventure-plus sites
  • directory updates
  • dates of workshops & conferences

Go to http://reviewing.co.uk (panel top left)


Active Reviewing Exchange (ARTips Exchange)

Active Reviewing Exchange is a moderated discussion group for
subscribers to the Active Reviewing Tips newsletter.

This group is for facilitators to exchange ideas stimulated by
the newsletter and to help each other develop ideas and practices
in active learning.

The focus is on maximising learning from experience - using
reflection and discussion or more creative and dynamic methods.


EXPERIENTIAL-CPD (continuing professional development)

Experiential-CPD is a new moderated announcement list where you
can announce or learn about upcoming training events in the UK
for outdoor educators and experiential trainers - on topics such
as facilitation skills, groupwork skills, course design, activity
design, working with specific client groups, etc.

Short, relevant announcements are welcome from all UK providers
of CPD for outdoor educators and experiential trainers.
(Announcements may be delayed for a week or so to group them into
one message.)

Go to http://reviewing.co.uk (panel top left)


Dynamic Debriefing is the title of the chapter I wrote for the
Handbook of Experiential Learning (Silberman, April 2007)

Part 1 defines debriefing and asks 'What is Dynamic Debriefing?'
See <http://reviewing.co.uk/archives/art/9_1.htm>

Part 2 on The Role of the Facilitator is now at

Here is Part 3               [also available in Russian Russia] was at http://www.metodmaster.ru/articles/dinamicheskii-debrifing-modeli-debrifinga


If the purpose of debriefing is to facilitate learning from
experience,it follows that a complete model of debriefing would
need to integrate experiential learning theory with facilitation
theory. Just as there are different kinds of experiential
learning, so there are different kinds of facilitation. This
creates many potential combinations for producing a theory of
debriefing!  John Heron (above) is one of the few writers who
combine both kinds of theory. Below is a list of what I would
consider to be the minimum requirements for a complete model of
debriefing. Against each requirement, I have suggested models
that have the potential for fulfilling that requirement - if

A complete model of debriefing would include:

1. A model for sequencing questions to create a suitable flow and
direction to a learning conversation.

There are so many sequencing models to choose from (mostly
presented as cycles) that these are discussed later in a separate
section on 'sequencing in debriefing'.

2. A model for keeping all learners engaged when debriefing in a

The pattern '1-2-All' is a good way to start a debrief (or a new
stage within a debrief). '1' = solo thinking time or writing time
or making a brief personal statement; '2' = talking in pairs;
'All' = whole group discussion. This kind of preparation helps to
generate higher levels of involvement and a higher quality of
group discussion. At any time, you can reverse the process using
'All-2-1'. The same or different pairs talk together and each
individual makes a note of their learning or of the next step
they wish to take. If appropriate, a session can end back in the
whole group with each individual invited to speak. '1-2-All-2-1'
can be used with most question sequences - because it is about
patterns of interaction rather than about the content of what is

3. A model that captures the rhythm of learning and change.

John Dewey used the analogy of armies moving and resting; George
Kelly wrote about tight and loose construing; Kurt Lewin used the
terms freezing and unfreezing; for David Kolb it was convergent
and divergent thinking; for Terry Borton it was about switching
between analytic and contemplative modes. Borton recommends that
questions based on his 'What? So What? Now What?' cycle are asked
"... in two quite different manners. The first is the analytic
mode ... hard-driving, pointed, sharp, logical, tough and
rigorous. But [writes Borton] it is difficult for people to
change if they are put under much pressure, so we also employ a
contemplative mode, a more relaxed approach which avoids picking
at one's self and allows alternatives to suggest themselves
through free association and metaphor." (Borton, 1970:89) These
various to and fro motions are like the rhythm of pistons driving
a wheel: over-dependence on one piston could bring learning to a
grinding halt. The alternation of activity and debriefing
provides a large, slow, two-stroke rhythm; there is also scope
within debriefing to facilitate these 'to and fro' rhythms of
learning and change.

4. A model for focused questioning.

The debriefing funnel uses a succession of filters that focus in
at every stage (Priest and Gass, 1997:196). The six filters are:
review, recall and remember, affect and effect, summation,
application and commitment. Priest and Gass describe it as an
expansion of Borton's three questions: 'What? So What? Now What?'
The image of the funnel and its filters clearly aligns the model
with Borton's analytic mode but provides little encouragement for
divergent or contemplative thinking as part of the debriefing
process. A more complete model might include an inverted funnel
to prompt lateral or creative thinking or to promote a helicopter
view. The authors do encourage adaptation of this model and
encourage readers not to be bound by a single view of debriefing
as the only way to guide reflection. Thiagi's advice on preparing
questions for debriefing follows a similar pattern - moving from
'open' to 'probing' questions within each of his six stages: How
do you feel? What happened? What did you learn? How does it
relate? What if? What next? (Thiagarajan & Thiagarajan,

5. A model that keeps in touch with learners' motivations.

'Ripples on a Pond' (Race, 2003) emphasizes the driving force
that is missing from other learning models. Professor Phil Race
has developed his model based on questions he has asked to 'tens
of thousands of people' from schoolchildren to training managers.
He places 'wanting to learn' (or, as a second best 'needing to
learn') at the centre of his ripples model. The ripples lead
outwards through doing, making sense, feedback, training and
understanding. Race says you should also ripple inwards and keep
revisiting the central 'wanting to learn'. As an example, the
right kind of feedback (at the third ripple) adds to people's
desire to learn. The outer ripples will disappear if there is no
energy at the centre. Race points out that unlike cyclical models
of learning, all factors in his model are involved at the same
time. This is why he writes: "Any model based on a cycle won't
do". If following a cycle too rigidly, the learning process
becomes fragmented and loses touch with the whole as well as
losing touch with the heart: 'wanting to learn'.

6. A model that recognizes the importance of what learners'
experience during the debrief.

Race (above) underlines the importance of learners wanting to
learn, but this sixth 'requirement' goes further by recognizing
that the quality of the experience during the debrief also has a
significant impact on learners' motivations. It can also have a
significant impact on their learning and development: both the
experience being debriefed and the experience of the debrief are
potential sources of learning and development. These
possibilities are explored further in the next section about 'the
experience of debriefing'.

7. A model that helps to keep the learning process moving.

Perhaps 'spinning plates' is an apt metaphor here. It illustrates
how a facilitator needs to pay attention to many different
factors when debriefing in a group - and especially to the plate
that is most likely to fall next. The plate 'most likely to fall
next' may well be the 'wanting to learn' plate (as in Race's
model) but it could be any plate that has escaped recent
attention - and this keeps changing. (Greenaway, 2004)

8. A model about working with whole persons throughout the

This is partly about how models are readily misinterpreted. As
soon as a model can be used as a sequence, it is - whatever its
author might say. Borton writes of his 'Sensing, Transforming,
Acting' model: "The model's three divisions are arbitrary, for
the processes do not function in a simple 1-2-3 fashion, but are
interwoven in a dynamic fashion." (Borton, 1970:78). After
describing all the factors in his 'Ripples in a Pond' learning
model, Race writes: "All these factors are involved at once"
(Race, 2003). It is difficult (though not impossible) to
represent dynamic, simultaneous or interweaving processes in a
model. Unfortunately, anything that looks like a sequence or a
cycle is likely to get applied as a one-thing-at-a-time linear
process - even when this is not the author's intention. Many
debriefing models are designed to be about working with whole
persons, but are interpreted and applied in ways that fragment
the integrated process intended by its originator. Borton warned
"do not dissect to disintegration," but many users of his 'What?
So What? Now What?' model do not know of author's warnings nor of
his advice about using the model.

9. A model that discourages a routine approach to a dynamic

A primary function of a model is to provide a useful
simplification of complex realities. Is it possible to create a
model that simplifies while also staying in touch with the
complex reality that it models? In my own model of the debriefing
cycle (Greenaway, 2002), I use the four playing card suits
(diamonds, hearts, clubs and spades) with each suit representing
a stage of a learning cycle (facts, feelings, findings and
futures). A joker (representing freedom) is at the centre of the
cycle as a reminder that reality is more complex. Unlike other
cards, the joker has no preordained meaning - it is a wild card
that has an infinity of possible uses and it can be played at any
time. On its own, the joker would have little power, but when it
is ever-present as an option within a cycle (for the facilitator
or participants) the joker tends to bring about whatever is
needed. The joker makes it easy to customize or even abandon the
model. This inbuilt flexibility helps to ensure that debriefing
is both 'appropriate' and 'dynamic'. As a wild card, the joker
refuses any label, but is often seen wearing the blue hat
(process overview) of Edward de Bono's 'Six Thinking Hats' model
(de Bono, 1985). However, a multicolored rainbow hat would better
suit the image and function of the joker. (Greenaway, 2004)

A complete model of debriefing would include all of the above
(and more). But once a model gets too big and cumbersome, it
loses its value as a practical model even though it may have the
virtue of being more complete. Perhaps, every model should
include a wild-card joker as a reminder that a model is only a
guide and that good practice arises from using models

... to be continued in the next issue of Active Reviewing Tips
where you can learn about 'The experience of Debriefing' -
another extract from my chapter on Dynamic Debriefing in Mel
Silberman's 'Handbook of Experiential Learning' (2007). See
Amazon.co.uk: <http://digbig.com/4rwnf> or



Active Reviewing Skills for Facilitators and Trainers
Ripley Castle  HG3 3AY

Thursday 31st Jan - Friday 1st Feb 2008

JANUARY 2008: Denmark
Organisationspsykologerne & Reviewing Skills Training present ...

ON THE EDGE: a 2 day seminar for consultants who are helping
individuals and groups to improve their performance and learning
in working situations. The seminar combines active reviewing with
artistic work.
January 15th and 16th 2008

Trainers: Roger Greenaway and Claus Dahl.

MARCH 2008: London

Eureka! presents ...

Thursday 13 March 2008 and Friday 14 March 2008
Central London

Wednesday 12 March 2008
Tips For Trainers In Action, Facilitated by David Gibson
Facilitating Effective Reviews, Facilitated by Dr Roger Greenaway

MARCH 2008: Derbyshire

I am providing a workshop on 'Making Reviewing an Adventure' at
the Festival of Outdoor Learning (7-9th March, 2008)

'Using Experiential Learning to Develop Team Skills'
This workshop outline (and this newsletter) may give you some
ideas for the kind of workshop you would like to invite me to
provide for your organisation or network. See:

** Please contact roger@reviewing.co.uk if you want more
information about these events or if you are interested in
hosting an open workshop closer to your home - or a customised
trainer-training event for your organisation or network. **

Other events on my calendar are 'closed' events designed for the
particular needs of a client (and are not shown here).


selected reviews of websites about teams, teamwork and team
building exercises.

Bob Willard distils ideas from 40 books and presents them in well
indexed paragraphs. The original site disappeared earlier this
year but you can still retrieve this valuable document here:

This report draws on a literature review as well as interviews
with practitioners to develop a checklist for the practice of
team learning. It finds that team learning involves:

 * building self-awareness, ownership and choice around the prior
 assumptions, beliefs and behaviour of each individual member of
 the team

 * identifying values and beliefs which they can share and
 promote with personal and group commitment

 * creating goals which are consistent with those values and

 * learning together, through practical application over a period
 of at least three months and with appropriate support and
 context, behaviours consistent with those values and beliefs.

Report compiled by Mary Ann Kernan with the support of Campaign
for Learning, published by The Talent Foundation, 2003


Please support SAVE THE CHILDREN by buying your books (and any
other Amazon goods) via the ACTIVE LEARNING BOOKSHOP.

The teambuilding-working-playing-learning 'bookshelves' are at:
where you will also find this review of Against Teambuilding:


Teambuilding exercises can get a bad name because they do not go
far enough. In fact, the whole concept of 'building' a team has
been challenged by Ian Cunningham in his article 'Against
Teambuilding' in 'Organisations and People' [Vol.1, No.1, (1993)
Pages 13-15]. He prefers the concepts of 'team working' and 'team
development', warning that 'teambuilding' can have negative
consequences such as:

    * A team becoming closed and precious - and out of touch with
    the rest of the organisation - through thinking itself
    special and different.

    * Overuse of instruments and tests (e.g. Belbin, Myers-
    Briggs) so that the team's language and thinking is

    * Emphasis tends to be on quick fix events - the assumption
    is that once the team is 'built' it's OK to leave them to it.

    * Issues in the team are explored at a shallow level only.
    People's articulations of problems are taken at face value
    without exploring hidden agendas, power plays, status seeking

    * Trainers and consultants often use exercises that are quite
    disconnected from work practice. Many fun exercises and
    simulations have a poor record of creating sustainable change
    inside organisations.

By whatever name, it is teams that make the world go round. What
do you have in your toolkit for making teams 'go round'?

Roger's Active Learning Bookshop has now raised over £500 for
Save the Children since January 2006. Thanks to everyone who has
been shopping at the Active Learning Bookshop.

If you have other purchases you want to make at Amazon please go
there via <http://reviewing.co.uk/reviews> Not only do you get a
good deal, so do children around the world who need our help.
I worked for Save the Children for 4 years so I know about the
value and quality of the work they do.


Your friends can receive the next and future issues
Why keep it a secret?

What would make you think of a future issue as 'Reviewing for
Me'? or 'Reviewing for the People I Work With'? Your answer will
help me to extend the 'Reviewing For _' series by writing for
readers just like you!

Please send your answer to Roger at: roger@reviewing.co.uk

Each month Active Reviewing Tips brings you:

ARCHIVES   FREE Subscription   CONTENTS of this issue

 INDEX to reviewing.co.uk - resources for dynamic learning
 How to find your way around reviewing.co.uk
Copyright © Roger Greenaway, Reviewing Skills Training, who promotes ACTIVE LEARNING via