Debriefing With Good Judgment: Combining Rigorous Feedback With Genuine Inquiry
Highlights
- The goals are to allow trainees to explain, analyze, and synthesize information and emotional states to improve performance in similar situations in the future. The process for achieving these goals usually follows a series of steps, such as processing reactions, analyzing the situation, generalizing to everyday experience, and shaping future action by lessons learned (View Highlight)
(View Highlight)- Without an understanding of their own frames, instructors are handicapped in their ability to help illuminate a trainee's frames. (View Highlight)
- Whereas the judgmental approach often humiliates directly, the nonjudgmental approach conveys nonverbally that mistakes are not discussible, or possibly shameful [36|36], [37|37], undermining the very values (mistakes are puzzles to be learned from rather than crimes to be covered up) instructors aim to endorse with the nonjudgmental approach (View Highlight)
- One particularly effective style of debriefing speech is to pair advocacy with inquiry. An advocacy is an assertion, observation, or statement, whereas an inquiry is a question. When pairing the two together, the instructor acts as a conversational scientist, stating in the advocacy his or her hypothesis, and then testing the hypothesis with an inquiry (View Highlight)
- This is the generic approach that instructors can use in any scenario: Step (1) notice a relevant result; step (2) observe what actions seemed to lead to the result; and step (3) use advocacy-inquiry to discover the frames that produced the results. (View Highlight)
- by pairing this advocacy with true inquiry, the instructor increases mutuality by respecting the trainee enough to value his or her (the trainee's) perspective, and this, in turn, improves learning (View Highlight)