Yeah, comfort zone, I've got to kind of agree and disagree with comfort zone because I mean take, for example, Archimedes in your earlier video, he was extremely comfortable, you know, lying back in his warm bath when he came up with his breakthrough idea. So there's an example of somebody learning a lot in the comfort zone. So, if you tell people they need to leave their comfort zone in order to learn people might think well the further we leave our comfort zone then the more will like but that is clearly not true, because the further you are away from a so called comfort zone, the more fears that are, the more anxiety the more concerns and and these are all the kind of things Things that actually prevent learning. So I'm not in favor of creating discomfort in order to cause learning. I'm not implying that's what you mean by your question.

But I think you get more, you get quicker where you want to go where you want participants to go. If you talk about a learning zone, and if you have conversations about what helps and hinders your learning, what would make it easier for you to learn what isn't getting in the way of learning and so on. And creating a learning zone in which everyone involved shares some kind of responsibility for creating a supportive learning climate. I think that is a useful way forward. Well, success and failure are both important. In reviewing what tends to happen is that people focus on failure more simply because they're trying to improve.

But the problem is, if you talk about always talking in reviews about things going wrong, that that tends to drain energy out of reviews. So it's important to try and find the right balance. I mean, in general, failure can have a much bigger impact than success. And that big emotional impact is important. But the direction that things go after that impact is a little bit random. So sometimes people simply give up as a result of failure.

Other people, they might become more determined to succeed. And the impact failures aren't predictable. It seems more responsible to generate and learn from success. And when people do choose to follow successes, that's our talents develop. And in general, I'd say that success generates momentum. success breeds success.

Whereas there's a high risk that failures stops adding momentum, and repeated failure gnaws away at self esteem and limits people's capacity to learn. Whereas building on what works well will eventually invade areas of failure. writing a poem can be a challenge for anyone, especially when I think you only had about five minutes to this. What if you what you're actually doing and you picked someone else's plant out of a hat, and you had five minutes to turn that into a PE? Now you're asking, what is the reasoning behind this? Well, some time ago, I read a book by Professor Robert Haskell, called the transfer of learning.

And he summarized 100 years of research. In this book, he distilled it down into 11 principles and principles. But 11 was about innovation. And he summed it up in the sentence, parents of masters of transfer. So, I was quite pleased discover this because I used to be an English teacher. And I thought, wow, there's something here in poetry, which is going to be really useful in the training setting.

Now, the book this came from was more theoretical and practical. And my interpretation of this isn't precisely what was in what was in the book. But what I do is, I suggest that in order for transfer to be most effective, you need to use your whole brain, your left brain or right brain or if you prefer your logical brain, your creative brain, your emotional brain, however many different kinds of brain you can think of. The more you can draw on these skills, talents, abilities itself, and the more successful you're likely to be at transfer. Some people believe that Trent or operate in training, as if transfer is a very logical process. You just commit yourself to doing something, you write it down and you do it.

But it's rarely that straightforward. And I think there's quite a lot in getting people to produce something creative, some kind of creative souvenir, and taking that back with them, they're more likely to keep it on display, they're more likely to show other people and it tends to have more impact on the plant. But the reason I do the exercise is you don't actually need to make a choice. You go away with both go away. There's something illogical in the form of a plan, going away something creative in the form of payment, and you have access to both things. There's no need for it to be apparent, so long as it's something creative and gets that creative part of the brain working is just going to assist the transfer process.

Because in transfer, you don't just repeat what you do. On a program, you have to think again, you have to think New and learn again, as you're trying to apply what you've learned in a new situation. And that, to my mind, is a creative process. So transformative learning is both the creative, both logical and creative process. And I think that's probably what lies behind Robert haskel's 11th principle about parrots and masters of transfer. Now, that's a lot of questions, it will take quite a long time to write all of those in one go.

There's a bit of a shortcut. I've written an article some time ago called innovations in reviewing, which is on my website, and that goes through where a number of these methods came from. And mostly it's improvements to methods because I'm critical of methods that I come across and make changes in treatments like example, I get with them horseshoe turning a straight line into a cone. So I've been there many different sources of these methods. Are they supported by research and practice and so on? Well, I say depends very much what kind of question you're asking what kind of test you're putting on through.

I think the easiest kind of tests is to compare method a with method B. And quite often what you're looking for in the first place is just simply engaging people. So it's method a better at engaging people in method B. at a higher level, a bigger test would be not only to engage people, does it encourage people to think deeply does it encourage people to listen to each other so that they can discover different perspectives of the same activity or similar experience? So depends just how ambitious you want to be with your With your methods and what level of test you want it to be, and of course, can go all the way through to transfer. Does this reviewing math? Is this reviewing methods better for transfer than this other one?

Well, if the reviewing method was simply talking in a group, although you can have some really energetic group discussions, I think mostly group discussions as a forgotten and I think some of these reviewing methods that are more Fishel involve more movement are far more likely to be remembered. And in that way, a lot of active reviewing methods are far more likely to carry the learning into the future. I've been working as an instructor and teacher for a few years before moving into training. And I realized that training was very different because A lot more standing back and letting participants get much more involved. My very first role as a trainer as an assistant trainer and a couple of adult leadership courses. And it was a bigger experience than I expected because the the lead trainer disappeared once or twice and left me a little unprepared.

So I learned how to improvise quite early on in my career as a trainer. But the first group while I was in the lead trainer was a youth group on a 10 day personal development program. I was ill for the first few days, I was very low on energy and I felt sorry for the students I was working with. But after a while, I realized that students had all the energy that was needed and my lack of energy didn't really matter. I also didn't say very much that students had plenty to say anyway. During the course I slowly recovered from my illness and the students were delighted with how I was coming out to my shell and growing with confidence as the course progressed.

Students are very happy to take full credit for this, as I learned from this experience, many different ways of being an effective facilitator of learning and what the participants are doing is far more important than what the trainer or facilitator happens to be doing. after evaluating several of these programs, I found that young people were giving a really positive evaluation of the reviewing sessions even in relation to the activity sessions. And this is what initially made me so interested in reviewing. For many people, the idea of being a good facilitator is being someone who is good at asking questions and handling group discussions. And that is probably the most difficult thing of all. I mean, it's really difficult to facilitate a group discussion as everyone reflecting on their experiences, everyone sharing their experiences, and then helping people learn or benefit from those experiences in some way, and then turning these discoveries into future action.

Now, it's a very tall order if you're trying to do that just through questions and discussion. But if you have a variety of tools that you can use or offer to your participants, then it becomes much easier to facilitate well in a shorter time. Because some tools are good for deeper reflection. Some tools are good for sharing ideas with others. Some tools are good and useful for Planning ahead and so on. So, what takes a long time is the general facilitation skills running a good discussion without the aid of tools.

What takes a shorter time is learning a few tools and using them wisely. And hopefully, that is what participants in this course will discover. Well, when I started out my horizon was UK wide. And so I advertised in the UK journal. Interestingly, advertisement only had one response, but that response came from Beijing. And that was my very first work abroad.

I did a training course out in the Great Wall of China. From that led many other courses, people moved on to different workplaces and then invite me to train there and in various ways, I ended up working throughout the Far East in a number of different countries. And I was also writing books and articles about reviewing in the early 90s. I've continued with the articles, and promoting these on my websites and so on that has also helped quite a lot. But 80% of my work comes directly through referrals. And I feel that's quite a good place to be.

Yes, I've been writing about reviewing for a while and I'm sure I'll keep going. And but reviewing itself is part of a much broader field of experiential learning. And in some ways, it's a very old field because we've been learning from experience since before we could write, but in another sense is a very recent failed because the academic world has only turned its attention to exponential learning relatively recently. But it's learning from experience is a unique human ability. And I feel we should be paying far more attention to it both in a theoretical way, but also in a practical way, so that it's something that everyone can be helped to do better.