Home | About this site | Lesson Plans | Student Training | Adult & College | Downloads |Site Support | About us Home | About this site | Lesson Plans | Student Training | Adult & College | Downloads |Site Support | About us
Mac Safari Users: If pdf files will not open:
Open Acrobat or Adobe Reader, go to its internet preferences, and uncheck “Display PDF in browser using...”
Then go to HD/Library/Internet Plug-Ins and make sure AdobePDFViewer.plugin is not in there.
Peer Mediator Training Workshop Presenter Notes - view page 18
18 Agree on Agenda, Look at Items and the Conflict - M6
Need MITs in quads with workbooks, pen/pencil
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To answer the first question we have twelve (12) "little agreements" at this point as we add the two (2) agreed upon agenda items (which are now written--if not already there--into the "Central Box"-- note workbook arrow clue referring to the MITs' journals) to the ten little agreements that we had already. But, as we mentioned earlier, these last kinds of little agreements are far, far more substantive and increasingly valuable as to content than those before. These represent our desired direction. In any case, we have a dozen little steps toward peace before even considering any agenda item at length--not bad!
We all start together, again, from this point. with the consensus two agenda items on our journals, BUT first, we switch roles per the directions below the jagged dividing line directly below figure 6. Notice that mediators switch roles within their diad whereas disputants take back their former roles as disputants - again, this is not a drama class! Figure 7 which is an excerpt from the Journal's back page, shows us that we are to transfer the two items into the small , left side box:"Agenda Items from the Other Side"
PRACTICE item 11a, will give us our 13th "little agreement" when disputants agree upon which agenda item to discuss first. Now we are beyond simply listing stuff as the "weight" of items comes into play. All told, we have, then, thirteen (13) points of agreement, before really discussing a single dispute solution! This is how we have tried to set up our success opportunity "momentum" for disputants. In actual mediations, there is support for either choosing an easy "icebreaker" item to get us going in the discussion, or choosing a "lynch pin" type item that causes all of the others to become incidental and get solved in a cascading style. For today, either item will do for process practice purposes. Remind the MITs that when playing disputants' role that we need them to play disputant parts according to the placards and to play them well! Mediators need something substantial with which to work!
Make certain that the table placards are correctly oriented to assist MITs with their role play.
In the work just ahead, now, surprises can occur as emotions, hidden until now, surface in unexpected ways. There is no easy answer here. In any event, go with what disputants decide in spite of any "steering" you as mediator may have done here. "Steering" in no way suggests offering solutions! Steering may be thought of as a process of uncovering so that disputants can look for themselves--but we must be impartial here and uncover every conceivable related facet. All related items need to be addressed in some fashion during a mediation. Helpful process and question hints for MITs to use are printed on the journal directly under the Agenda Box. Go slowly in this area of training and allow MITs to try some of them. If anger and other feelings are blocking progress, refer back to some of the earlier training pages on active listening probes using feeling related questions. Presenters, during preparation for this workshop, may wish to refer to our Conflict Resolution - 12 page pdf - booklet for more information regarding training tips for this important phase of the mediation. This is a phase where the "crucible of transformation" may occur as all the elements of process are brought into play. It's an alchemy of sorts - to borrow from C.G.Jung - and the elements and time work to bring about an output that works for the disputants. Each mediation process is a new experience for mediators and there is no firm road map here. A good rule, if there is such a thing here, is that mediators truly care about disputants equally as worthy persons and without harboring judgment towards either one. Thus defines a compassionate neutrality. Of interest here is that what looks to be unbalanced as to value to disputants in our view as mediators, may feel fairly balanced to them. Go with it! Directly below is process information repeated, from our listening, questioning and initial statements section of this training . . .
"We continue to "lance the boil" in our questioning strategy. The direction of questioning which includes the words, ' . . .you feel?' keeps the focus on feelings and on the disputants. In all that follows, we keep the focus on the two people before us and their dispute and not stray off toward judging or assuming information about third parties. There is such temptation to avoid the issues of hard feelings. Keep the dispute with the disputants, also. Do not offer solutions or advice. Wear your Teflon reflector suit at all times. Gently and persistently return the issues back to disputants that they may grapple with them under your caring control. Never, in any manner, attack disputants with your questions. Act as if you are totally ignorant of the situation and you need them to tell you about it. This helps to preserve your necessary neutrality. Remember, that what you are hearing is what the other disputant is also hearing. You help them to communicate with each other through you."
For each mediator diad, in turn, now, Everything we've done in the way of training and process comes into play here. The "art" of mediation occurs here. If the concept of the Gestalt of training could be applied, this is the place.
MITs will appear to be using a "cookbook" approach here as they grapple with training resources and disputants. Please, please assure them that this is entirely permissible and normal. If they didn't have to do things this way, they wouldn't need this training experience! Today, we as presenters must accept that we have been able to teach some MITs better than others to this point, also, and not be discouraged as we informally conduct CFUs. We have all worked hard to this point and need to stay positive for each other and supportive of our school mediator team effort. "No MIT gets left behind!" is a good phrase to use when you apply for federal funds for your M&M supply.
Try to stay with your diad's issue until its solution is agreed upon. One rough mutually beneficial idea for solution which benefits each disputant's needs related to of the conflict is each diad's goal as they address an issue today.
EACH DIAD WILL ONLY PRODUCE ONE MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL ROUGH SOLUTION IDEA when we have completed discussion of the two issues on pages M6 and then M7. Each solution ideas may involve a couple of sentences. Clarity is important. Rough solutions developed by the mediator diad should be written (as noted) on figure 8 on page M7). Use the workbook for now as we will be having a class discussion before we enter rough solutions onto our Mediation Journals.
On the next page, we will reverse roles and address the remaining issue and new MIT mediators will complete the same steps as above.
This page: rev26APRIL09
version