The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.htm

JEIT
34,5 Scenistic methods in training:
definitions and theory grounding
Paul Lyons
416 College of Business, Frostburg State University, Frostburg, Maryland, USA

Received 18 May 2009

Revised 21 December 2009 Abstract
Accepted 8 February 2010 Purpose – The aim of this article is to describe the scenistic approach to training with corresponding
activities and the theory bases that support the approach.
Design/methodology/approach – Presented is the definition of the concept of scenistic training
along with the step-by-step details of the implementation of the approach. Scenistic methods, while
clear examples of situated cognition and learning, are derived from several other important theory
bases to include constructivism, experiential learning, mental models, transformative learning, and
action theory.
Findings – The theory base offers support for the activities and steps contained in scenistic training
methods. The theories, in combination, address motivation, distinct learning tasks and activities, and
the regulation of learning. To an extent, scenistic methods invite the trainee to create and manage
learning with guidance and support from trainers. This delegation of responsibility to the trainee has
powerful motivational consequences.
Research limitations/implications – In this article a detailed presentation of the concepts and
theories that support the development and use of scenistic training methods is offered. Even though
the efficacy of scenistic methods are supported with empirical research, the theory-base for the
methods has not been carefully explained.
Practical implications – Most of the development of scenistic methods has taken place in the past
ten years, a time period in which there has not been a lot of interest displayed in new training
approaches. This article seeks to illuminate the concept for practitioners and scholars of training as
well as to offer detailed theory grounding for scenistic methods.
Originality/value – Originality and value are combined in the expression of the details of a
somewhat generic model of scenistic methods as well as a reasonably broad perspective of theories
that help to explain the dynamics of the steps in the approach.
Keywords Training methods, Experiential learning, Action learning, Cognition
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
In recent years there have been some advances in training and development
approaches and some of these advances are placed under the label of scenistic methods.
The term, scenistic, represents a class or group of methods, approaches, guides, or
processes that are centered on the use of scenarios, incidents, case-studies, episodes,
stories and the like that offer a particular context or setting and that stimulate:
.
interest in some performance issue, need, or deficiency; and
.
the creation of script-based interventions to apply in the circumstances.
Journal of European Industrial
Training In this article, the words “scenistic methods and/or approaches” are used for
Vol. 34 No. 5, 2010
pp. 416-431 consistency purposes.
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited Recent research demonstrates a variety of methods that can be labeled, scenistic (for
0309-0590
DOI 10.1108/03090591011049792 example, see Labour, 2004; Leleu-Merviel et al., 2002; Lyons, 2008, 2007a, b, 2006,
2005a, b, 2004, 2003). By themselves, the use of incidents, cases, episodes, and related Scenistic
material used in instruction and training are not new or different. What is clearly methods in
different from other approaches is the use of this type of material in the creation,
application, and refinement of script-type behavior guides for the learners to use in training
practice. In scenistic approaches, the learners are the chief contributors, with guidance,
to creation of the behavior guides.
In this article the concept of scenistic methods as well as corresponding learning 417
activities and theory foundations of the methods are defined and examined. The term
scenistic is traced to the research of Leleu-Merviel et al. (2002). Different approaches to
training and learning, scenistic in nature, have been identified in the past; however
there has been no substantive effort, to date, to carefully define or categorize these
methods or to offer a comprehensive, theoretical underpinning of them. This article
sets out to address these matters. In particular, the creation and use of script-based
interventions resulting from training are explained and demonstrated.
A few important assumptions help to guide the content of this article. First, it is
important to demonstrate new models of training and development so as to broaden
the repertoire of trainers, facilitators, and managers. Second, it is desirable to offer
training methods that are clearly anchored in supportive theory with concomitant
empirical grounding. Third, methods that are linked to performance improvement for
both the training setting and on the job have particular value. Finally, it is helpful for
practitioners and scholars if we can demonstrate at least some connections between the
training activities we use and the theory and conceptual literatures that support, in
particular, adult learning and motivation for learning and change.

Background and purpose

In examining recent research, Cascio and Aguinas (2008) found that serious research
on training and development methodologies has fallen off during the past ten years.
For example, since 1997 in all volumes of the Journal of Applied Psychology and
Personnel Psychology only 37 of 1,169 articles (3 per cent of the total) in both journals,
combined, were related to the topics of training and/or development. In decades prior to
1997, more research was completed in these areas although the quantity of that
research has never been great. Roughly, 93 per cent of the articles in these two journals
were completed by persons with affiliations in American and European universities.
Both journals are well regarded and with few exceptions publish empirical studies.
There are other journals dedicated almost exclusively to training and development
such as Industrial and Commercial Training, Journal of European Industrial Training,
Development and Learning in Organizations, and Training and Management
Development Methods. These journals have a particular though not exclusive
interest in training and development in the European Union and publish a variety of
studies, many of which are empirical in nature. With the exception of the journal,
Performance Improvement, there is no other, American counterpart for these journals.
Personal searches of several relevant databases reveal that there is little empirical
research reported on training and development methods in Asian journals. On a
world-wide basis then, there is not a lot of research produced, particularly empirical
research, regarding training and development methods even when we consider that
additional research on training occasionally appears in journals not mentioned here.
The purposes of this study are to:
JEIT .
offer a definition and explanation of scenistic methods;
34,5 .
provide an explanation of the learning activities that are common to these
methods; and
.
present the theory-base that gives us a somewhat common platform for scenistic
approaches.
418 Ultimately, the idea is to give training practitioners and scholars, and managers some
tools that have demonstrated credibility and value, practical utility, and that are
grounded on a theory-base that reflects state of the art conceptualizations of adult
learning and cognition.

What is a scenistic method?

Scenistic method as used in training is about the use and centrality of case material,
stories, critical incidents, episodes, video material, and other types of material that are
related to a particular performance context, setting, and/or outcome that stimulates
some clearly identifiable training need (for example, managing customer complaints)
that should be addressed with a group of employees. The episodic or case material
must be clearly related to the setting in which the employees work on a regular basis.
The material may be created for the employee (low involvement), or the material
actually used in the training (cases, incidents, etc.) may be the creation of employees
and trainers and/or managers (high involvement). Depending on the experience level
and motivation of the employee group it is usually desirable for employees to be
participants in the training preparation and key processes.
The critical parts of the definition of scenistic methods are: performance in situ, and
employees-as-participants in creation, production, and application of training activities
and materials. Owing to the social facilitation and reinforcement that occurs in
scenistic methods, as well as issues of efficiency and cost, it is not reasonable to use the
approach with a single learner.
Use of situated, in-context learning materials is not new. For example there is a
body of literature that explains the instructional uses of the case study (see Christensen
et al., 1991). Cases used in management education and other areas of education in the
professions (public administration, nursing, law, and educational administration, for
example) have a history of 80 years or more and emphasize such skills as questioning,
making assumptions, defining issues and problems, creating hypotheses, problem
solving, and the like. This is not the same as a scenistic use of cases because cases are
normally selected by an instructor for some learning goal or objective, which may or
may not have anything to do with an explicit performance context. The case is usually
written by someone who is not known by or familiar with the learners and the learners
have no direct involvement in the preparation of the material. Hence, scenistic method
is not simply the use of cases or incidents in instruction. Scenistic approaches may be
devised for virtually any job category or area of study. The methods are bound only by
the creativity of the trainer and the learners.

The general components of scenistic methods

The sequential process outlined here is general in nature and one that can be adapted
to a variety of training purposes. The process consists of several steps or elements
arranged in a sequence that provoke interest and motivation of learners. The
expression of the components follows as per a typical training arrangement. Keep in Scenistic
mind that trainers and managers are engaged in several components while trainees methods in
(employees, learners) are engaged in nearly all components. The sequential process is
outlined below: training
(1) A body of information is identified.
(2) Engagement and clarification with trainees:
419
.
plenary session of trainees
– problem identification
– possible interventions.
(3) Small group work.
(4) Intervention and script identity (resulting from small group work).
(5) Modeling the intervention.
(6) Recognition of skilled intervention practices.
(7) Modeling – rehearsal.

Body of information
First, there must be a body of information that trainees can perceive, study, and
analyze. With highly motivated, experienced, mature learners, we could commence
with an activity in which the learners and the trainer compose their own body of
information, for example, a company situation put into writing – a case. For the sake of
simplicity in this discussion, we will assume that the training staff and management
have already prepared a case for the trainees. The body of information could take the
form of a scenario, a case situation, an issue or problem that is currently active, and so
forth. For illustration, we use a case in written form that contains details about matters
such as organization and employees, business activities and processes, data, issues,
and so on. The case could also be presented in video form (see, Labour, 2004). The
learning process is facilitated by one who has attained familiarity with scenistic
approaches. Some examples of a body of information are: instituting a change in a
diverse group, team leadership of an ad hoc task force, or addition of new lines of
business. For purposes of an example to demonstrate activities in the steps of the
process, suppose we have some case incidents that present episodes of customer
complaints.

Initial engagement and clarification

We have some case incidents created by managers and trainers with some employee
input. Learners review the information (individually and in small groups) for
completeness, understanding, meanings, and so on. Clarifications are sought, usually
through small-group discussions with some trainer as well as manager input. The
objective here is to invite the learners to engage the material and actively participate in
helping themselves and others to clearly grasp the details and meanings of the
information.
First plenary session. The first plenary session has two components: Information
clarification and problem identification, and identity of possible interventions. Given
the customer complaint case material, the generation of learner interest and input
should not be difficult to achieve.
JEIT Information clarification and problem identification. In an open forum, with regard to
34,5 the case material, we seek to clarify what we think we know, what we do not know
and/or have questions about, and so on. The discussion has as one of its objectives the
recognition of important information and performance gaps. It is a stimulus for
training on two fronts and helps to legitimize the need for study and training. Trainer
and learners need to attain consensus about the critical issues, details, and problems
420 that the case information reveals. Brady’s (2004) categories of study of situational
elements can be helpful in shaping our shared mental models of reality. That is, we can
address situational issues the case material presents using these screening tools:
.
time aspects – currency, duration, other;
.
the setting – organization, basic work processes, history, other;
.
actors – number, distribution, roles, training, background, other;
.
social patterns – work relationships, friendships, networks, other; and
. assumptions – what do we take for granted; what is clearly “true”.
Brady’s framework helps to provide criteria for content selection and emphasis. It also
helps us to envision possible relationships among various aspects of reality. A
fundamental assumption is that trainees already possess considerable knowledge and
need to reorganize it to make it more useful. Trainees need to supplement knowledge
with insights and skills that will help explain more fully what they already know
(Brady, 2004, p. 280).
Possible interventions. The plenary session will yield some problem or gap in
performance issues, regarding customer complaints, that most learners will agree need
some attention. The trainers and managers may help shape understandings.
Speculation then follows as to what specific interventions need to occur to address the
problems. The trainer can offer feedback, suggestions, advice, etc. but is not to impose
direction. The learners need to take some chances and propose their own interventions
so as to reinforce involvement and ownership. With reference to the case material
about customer complaints, we should now have a considerable body of information
that illuminates the various dimensions of customer interests and perceived
shortcomings of our (individual, group, company) performance.

Small group sessions

At this point, small groups meet, independently of other groups, scheduling time for in
person, telepresence, and/or online (chat, other) discussions. Brainstorming potential
interventions for treating the issues and problems takes place. Trainers are involved in
the facilitation of each task and may serve as a resource. Once possible interventions
are identified, tasks are parsed to sub-groups or individuals within the established,
small groups of learners for each group to achieve the following:
.
List – what specific behavior is required to skillfully execute the application of
the intervention within the context identified? (BEHAVIORS).
.
Access/summarize – what research, authoritative information, etc. must we
consider to successfully implement the intervention? (RESEARCH).
.
Reconcile – in order to put forth a tentative action plan for the intervention, we
must reconcile our behaviors list with the research information in order to
recommend a set of behaviors.
At this point, the learners have created and discovered much information about the Scenistic
aspects of customer complaints, given the specifics of our operating environment. All methods in
learners have had the opportunity to expand their knowledge and facts about customer
behavior and needs. Further, learners are discovering the means to improve their training
performance as they work out the details of intervention practices.

Intervention and script identity 421

At this time the small groups have identified the several elements necessary to address
the issues or problems heretofore identified. Consensual processes have taken place to
achieve this result. The result is temporary as validation processes need to occur. The
script as used here is not a recipe, or an ordered sequence of actions. The script is an
informed guide to action in implementation of an intervention that has been identified
as useful in the circumstances. A script for the same, general intervention may be quite
different from group to group.

Model the intervention

This is a rehearsal of the behavioral script, or of a template, job aid or other device or
process used to frame the intervention. Such rehearsal requires the leadership of the
facilitator to be ever mindful of the context in which the intervention is to be enacted.
This step and the next two steps are skill development activities; that is, skill
developed over a foundation of knowledge and understanding gained from the
previous steps. In theory, we now have what we believe are reasonably well-developed
interventions that ultimately are to be used in interactions with customers.

Recognition of skilled intervention practices

Next, we develop qualitative and quantitative evaluation or assessment indicators of
effective, skillful intervention practices. This may be labor-intensive work depending
on the experience and skill of the participants involved. It is necessary work in order to
achieve effectiveness. Having modeled the intervention (rehearsal) will assist this
effort. Each of the actions or behaviors may be examined in terms of skilled
performance. The following questions may be helpful: What criteria would define each
element as a skilled performance? What criteria make sense in terms of quality or
consequences? Responses to these or similar questions serve as consensual validation
of the efforts as well as a form of regulation of learning.
This aspect of the scenistic approach may be the most challenging for learners and
trainers. To engage in the activities of this step requires careful direction, thought and
a dedication to improvements in quality. In a particular setting, there may evolve some
trainee resistance in working through this part of the approach. In the author’s
experience, in some applications of the scenistic approach this step had to be
abandoned.

Repeat the modeling of the intervention: rehearsal

The effectiveness criteria established in the preceding step will inform this work. A
large component of rehearsal is the reflection on practice (implementation) that takes
place among the members of the group. The trainer or facilitator needs to monitor the
activities of the group in order to stimulate, as needed, the reflection on practice. The
feedback and reflection is needed because it is a form of regulation of behavior and
JEIT learning. Finally, at this juncture we are sufficiently prepared to field test our
34,5 intervention in our particular setting.

Summary
The assumptions underlying all of this preparation are: improvement is continuous,
improvement is based on trial and learning, and most likely there is no “silver bullet”
422 or one best way to achieve improvements. This segment concludes the expression of
how the scenistic approach to training and learning takes place. The paragraphs that
follow offer the theoretical foundations for the approach.

Theory bases of scenistic approaches

In order to establish validity and credibility for a specific training approach it is
important to explain the foundations of the approach. There are several theory and
conceptual bases for scenistic approaches to include: situated learning/cognition,
constructivism, experiential learning, transformative learning theory, and action
theory. These bases are interrelated and some are more general than others, for
example, situated learning theory, constructivism, and transformative learning theory
refer to relatively general issues and conditions while experiential learning theory and
action theory are more complex, sequential, and process-defining. In the sections and
paragraphs that follow, concepts and theories are explained and mapped onto the
appropriate steps of the scenistic processes explained previously.

Situated learning or situated cognition

This theory is likely the most prominent, descriptive feature of scenistic approaches as
described in this article. In essence, the materials we create or use (cases, for example)
place the leaner in the midst of her/his operating environment. We commence with case
material and then move to recognition of issues, problems and the like. The learner has
some familiarity with the context. Learner involvement here corresponds directly to the
first two components of the process (see Figure 1). According to Kirshner and Whitson
(1997) situated cognition theory regards learning as more of a social or sociocultural
phenomenon in contrast to the effort by an individual to acquire information from
some source that is not part of the context in which the learning will be applied. Brown
et al. (1989) in a seminal work stated that conceptual knowledge cannot be set aside or
abstracted from the situation in which it is learned; rather, it is situated in the context
and culture in which it is developed. In situated learning, skills and information are
learned in the context in which they will be applied and for adult learners, the idea is to
create conditions in which the learners can directly experience the issues, complexities;
the ambiguity presented in a real, operating environment. The link between learning
and application is reinforced in situated learning. Some researchers (Norman, 1993)
suggest that all adult learning occurs within a situation-dependent context and that
there is no non-situated learning.
There are four prominent characteristics of situated learning in terms of design and
use and these features are explained by Anderson et al. (1996): learning is based upon
situations in which learners will be regularly immersed; the knowledge that learners
acquire, situationally, is intended for use in similar situations; and learning activities
are shared, and to some extent created with others, socially, and not passively; that is,
learners work together, interactively, to define, perceive, and solve problems, among
other things. Again, these activities are clearly reflective of most of the steps in the Scenistic
process defined above and particularly so with the first three steps. methods in
This behavior of adult learners in the context defined often results in community.
Lave and Wenger (1991) refer to “community of practice”. This notion of community is training
reflective of the very behavior enumerated here. Finally, the fourth characteristic: the
learning activities will focus on real issues and topics that can benefit from
improvement. Clearly, the four characteristics mentioned here mirror the 423
characteristics and/or conditions expressed in the general scenistic approach
outlined in this article. The situational context is a critical factor of the learning and
practice environment.
In situated learning, the learning is fundamentally situation-based as contrasted
with content-based, or packaged information. The learners, not the instructor, have the
responsibility for interaction and for learning information that they influence. Not all
adult learners function well in an educational environment with these characteristics.
To a considerable extent, the knowledge that is attained by the learners has been
negotiated in social dialog and shared meanings and mental models.
In the environment expressed in situation-based learning there are many things going
on that may be materially different from what goes on in the typical, instructor-led
situation. Owing to the responsibility placed on the learner to be actively involved in
information seeking, problem solving, and reflection, we can expect some amount of
interaction among learners that includes cooperating, interpreting and negotiating (Choi
and Hannafin, 1995). Interaction that relates to the type of activities mentioned here may
also stimulate behavior that reflects competing interests, differences in values, and
politics all of which may influence the creation of mental models.

Mental models
In general, a mental model is an individual’s thoughtful-cognitive representation of
some element of reality. A mental model can influence beliefs and attitudes towards
something, for example, a particular job or profession. Mental models can be known
and shared. In the scenistic approach we anticipate that the social interaction,
confrontation of different perspectives, and ultimate identity of possible interventions
for problem solving result in shared mental models. A mental model is psychological or
reasoned (cognition) representation of some situation that may be real or imaginary
and that assists one in making inferences and taking some action (Senge, 1990). A
mental model is a representation of a possible or probable condition that exists in
conscious experience. It is not possible to know how many of these models an
individual possesses (Schaffernicht, 2006). The concept has meaning for adult learning
because learning is said to take place when changes occur in the individual’s mental
models. The change may take place in any of several domains to include affective,
psychomotor, or cognition. In cognition we assume that the changes that take place in
mental models are resulting from rational thought. In the small group work, and
intervention and script identify segments of the model presented (see above) we may
anticipate that the mental models of individual learners will be both challenged and
augmented in some way. This is intentional and deliberate in the scenistic approach.
An assumption is that the typical learner will, in fact, possess some mental models of
the topics or concepts being examined. Another key assumption is that these models
are malleable, to some extent.
JEIT There is a small and growing body of research that supports the idea that mental
34,5 models help to offer a basic explanation for learning. Bechtel (1998) and Johnson-Laird
(1980) have suggested that mental models are more general than an image or picture,
and are not dependent on the application of formal rules of logic. Also, mental models
are not static but dynamic and subject to change. Change is what results from learning.
Goel (2009, p. 55) has pointed out that a change in a mental model can include the
424 modification of an existing mental model or the rejection of a model that no longer
seems accurate. Also, we may create a new mental model to represent an alternate state
of affairs for the same phenomenon. For example, an employee attaining intrinsic
satisfaction from certain job tasks that up to now provided only extrinsic job rewards.
The formation and revision of mental models may be different for the younger
generation of employees, that is, members of the “net” generation or the emergent adult
learner. As Sontag (2008) points out, the net-savvy learners, the ones who are highly
immersed in and comfortable with various digital technologies, often use social
cognitive-connectedness schemas in their work. Schemata are those procedures we use
to scan new input to see if it has information related in some ways to previously
understood concepts. Often, the work of the digitally-prepared learners tends to exhibit
competence in navigation literacy, a preference for interactive, discovery-based
learning; and an ability to make reasoned judgment based upon a variety of resources.
This work is practically expressed as linking (connect with others with similar
interests), lurking (watching others who know how to do what we want to be able to
do), and lunging (jumping in with little or no advance preparation) into tasks to gain
experience (see Brown, 2000). This discovery learning behavior is clearly different from
that of many older learners.

Constructivism and experiential learning theory

A strong case can be made that all of the steps (see Figure 1) of the scenistic model are
clear examples of both constructivism and experiential learning theory. There is much
interplay of situated learning/cognition and constructivism in the model offered in this
article. In using the theories to explain the dynamics of the model it becomes apparent
that the theories overlap in attempting to explain just how individual and teams of
learners behave. With reference to scenistic approaches, constructivist and experiential
learning theory create part of the groundwork for instruction and training that intends
to situate learning and skill development. Constructivism in relation to learning
suggests that learning is a highly active intellectual process in which learners are
constructing new knowledge over a foundation of prior or previous learning (Prohaska,
1994). A constructivist approach to learning creates the expectation that there are
many ways in which to enhance what one knows and what one is able to do. There is
not necessarily one best way ( Jonassen, 1991). There are multiple, possible
representations of reality. This notion fits very well with the long-standing use of
case analyses in management and supervisor education as well as other scenistic
methods.
We find that constructivism is a good match for situated and scenistic learning
because we can emphasize authentic tasks in organizational contexts that most adults
can understand. In the shaping of learning of skills in a context, the elements of a
performance need to be specified, made known, and understood (Jonassen, 1994).
Working through these phases or steps will help individuals and groups to discover
gaps and inconsistencies in what one thinks is known about skillful performance in a Scenistic
particular domain. Additionally, working through these phases in give-and-take social methods in
interaction should help to accelerate the learning.
Constructivist thought has provided much of the basis for experiential learning training
theory. The specific learning encounters in situated and scenistic methods expressed in
this article rely to some extent on experiential learning. Experiential learning theory, as
an interdisciplinary field, is grounded in psychology, philosophy, sociology, 425
anthropology, and cognitive science (Carver, 1996). Much has been written in the
last 100 years regarding experiential education and experiential learning as the
traditions of experiential learning extend from the writings of Dewey (1933) to the
present (Mezirow, 1998).
Perhaps the most established and discussed model of experiential learning is that of
David Kolb (1984). In his model, cyclical in nature, the process of learning commences
with an experience (or, concrete experience), that is then followed by reflection
(reflective observation). The reflections are then assimilated or incorporated into a
personalized theory (abstract conceptualization). Finally, the theory is applied or tested
in some new situation (active experimentation). The model demonstrates recurring
cycles of mental effort whereby new concepts are tested, reflected upon and so forth.
The process is iterative. Experiential learning is expressed in this model that
commences with experience, followed by reflection, analysis, and evaluation of
experience. The creation and learning of new knowledge expressed in scenistic and
situated methods mirror this conceptualization, in general, and make use of the same
sequence of mental events that Kolb presents in his theory and that we see played out
in the sequential steps of the scenistic approach (see Figure 1). On a small group level,
this learning is a form of distributed cognition or products of intellectual partnerships
(Salomon, 1997).

Transformative learning theory

Jack Mezirow (1990, 1998) has added to the general understanding of experiential
education and learning with his concept of critical reflection. The concepts he
expresses have roots in the writings of Dewey (1933). The mental work of critical
reflection is the process of reflecting back on prior learning to determine whether what
we have learned is justified under present circumstances. He asserts that reflection on
assumptions and presuppositions held will lead to transformative learning (Mezirow,
1990, p. 14). Transformative learning is about seeing through one’s experience to
uncover what has been generally taken-for-granted. This reflection on assumptions
should take place in a social context where learners can voice perceptions, beliefs, and
new information. The social nature of the reflection is intended to reinforce learning.
In essence, in transformative learning, we open up our awareness of our
assumptions so we may invite a more inclusive, permeable, and discriminating

Figure 1.
Relationships among
theory constructs
JEIT perspective. This is one of the particular, critical intentions of scenistic approaches.
34,5 Scenistic and situated learning approaches involve the learner: being more open to the
perspectives of others, becoming more reflective and discriminating, and, ultimately,
feeling less need for defensive behavior and more open to new ideas. In learning in
groups, social facilitation is yet another positive stimulus to add to the list just
enumerated. In the next paragraphs appears an expansion on the ideas of invitation
426 and involvement.

Transformative learning and the “invitation” to learners

Many students, training session participants and others in student-instructor
relationships are not invited to explore what is to be done and how their own
interests and needs may shape the transactions between instructor and students as
well as the content of the transactions. Along these lines, the literature on leadership
(see, Yukl, 2006, pp. 98-111, for example) addresses issues of delegation and
empowerment among others.
Using scenistic methods we make special efforts to invite learners to shape the
content and execution of the process’ activities. In steps 4 (Intervention and script
identity) and 5 (Modeling the intervention) of the scenistic method we demonstrate the
notion of the invitation of the learner. The behavior required in these steps clearly
reflects the delegatory features of the training activities. Not all learners will accept
opportunity for empowerment via decision making but many will if we can accept the
research reported herein. The ability to successfully invite participants via delegation
and empowerment is a moderating factor in individual and group success or
effectiveness. Individual satisfaction with and commitment to a job are also important
factors related to invitation. Invitation is a form of empowerment and this aspect is
supported by research on transformational leadership (Tichy and Devanna, 1986;
Bryman et al., 1996). The research of Marcinelli (1997) that explored employee
creativity found that motivation and productivity of employees was positively
influenced when employees were given opportunities in using discretion in decision
making and in taking moderate risks. Hence, the dynamics of transformative and
experiential learning are linked with the influential, motivational constructs of use of
discretion, delegation, and participation in decision-making.

Action theory
Perhaps the least explored yet the most influential theory that helps ground scenistic
training approaches is action theory with its emphasis on the regulation of learning. Of
the theories and concepts expressed thus far, none of them prominently recognizes just
how much individual regulation of behavior is needed to successfully demonstrate the
application of learning in the field. The action theory of Michael Frese (2007) helps to
explain learning and its regulation and is especially sensitive to the application of
learning. The important features of action theory are set forth in the following
paragraphs.
Frese and Zapf (1994) and Frese (2007) offer action theory to explain how
individuals regulate their behavior to achieve goals actively in regular and/or novel
situations. As has been explained above, the situated learning and the scenistic
approach to learning represent relatively novel situations and demand a degree of
creativity. Because these approaches include highly active processes they seem
appropriate targets for the features of action theory. Action theory is characterized by Scenistic
Frese and Zapf (1994, p. 272) as: methods in
Action theory is a cognitive theory. But unlike many cognitive theories, it is tied to behavior. training
It is an information processing theory. But unlike many information processing theories, it is
tied to objective work environments and to the objective work outcome. It is a
behavior-oriented theory. But unlike behavioristic theories, it is concerned with the
processes that intervene between environmental input and behavior: the regulatory function 427
of cognitions.
These explanations fit quite well with the scenistic learning processes identified in this
article as they involve training – learning – reflection – and application.
Action theory helps us to get beyond what Salisbury (2008) refers to as a piecemeal
approach to the management of knowledge of cognitive processes. The theory provides
a framework for the understanding of the regulation of knowledge in a performance
context. Action theory contains three elements (Frese, 2007) whose interrelationships
provide the bases and dynamics of the theory and they are focus, sequence, and action
structure. The element of action theory that has the most relevance and the most
explanatory value for the processes of scenistic approaches is the action structure and
in the paragraphs that follow we examine the details of this structure.
Action structure. This element of action theory is really about the mechanics of
regulation; it is about the mental processes and behavior that take place to enact
regulation. In mental work structure is superimposed on most of the components of
learning. The use of scripts in scenistic methods, particularly the reflective activity, is
representative of a type of training in itself in which one learns to consciously attend to
and improve her/his own reflective behavior. Frese (2007, p. 162) says, “The action
structure is concerned with the hierarchical, cognitive regulation of behavior. The
structure constitutes a kind of ‘grammar’ for action”. Hence, regulation of action
follows a hierarchy in which lower levels of regulation consist mostly of patterns and
routines that tend to be fairly specific. For example, the way one approaches a
customer who has a complaint. The higher levels of the hierarchy of action regulation
are more general, typically conscious, and thought-oriented, and they correspond to the
application of scripts in varied situations with different individuals with different
needs, and adjustments required in the circumstances. Suggested here is the notion
that training staff, in particular, are in the position to help employees with these higher
levels of regulation. Such training efforts are direct representations of an
understanding of action theory.
In his expression of the action structure, Frese (2007) says there are four levels of
regulation. From lowest to highest level the first is the skill level, called psychomotor
by Ackerman (1988), which is rapid and somewhat automatic. An example would be
finding the customer’s location. The second level is that of the flexible action pattern in
which behavior is less automatic in action yet represents a well-trained pattern that is
subject to adjustment based on characteristics of the situation. An example would be
preparing for a meeting with a customer who has a complaint; having in hand facts
related to the matter, related policy or standards, customer history – if appropriate,
and so forth. The third level is the conscious level and it includes conscious, self-aware,
goal-directed behavior. It is an awareness of how a thing can and should be done; it can
be visualized and/or verbalized and situated in a context. This conscious level has been
JEIT called the intellectual level by Hacker (1998). This level of regulation corresponds very
34,5 well with the implementation of a script or prototype.
The fourth and final level of regulation Frese (2007, p. 163) called metacognitive
heuristics, or the self-reflection and thinking we engage in regarding our methods of
problem solving. This highest level of regulation may be somewhat general or very
specific. For example, in the implementation of a script with a customer, a sales
428 representative may follow a prescribed set of behaviors to assess the representative’s
reflection and recording of the adequacy of script use. On a more or less patterned
basis, heuristics, or shorthand rules for making choices and decisions, may be
employed. Metacognition and heuristics are fields of study in their own right and in
this article it is not practical to include many details of these topics.
The last three levels of regulation match well with the final four steps (see Figure 1)
of the scenistic approach. It is in these steps that more participative, context-specific,
creative, and reflective work of the learner takes place. Some of the work is iterative
and somewhat spontaneous. Much of the evidence of the individual learner’s mental
work is found in the actual performance of these four steps of the process.

Conclusions
This segment contains some implications, limitations, and conclusions. One
substantial implication is that scenistic training methods can, at least in some
instances, rely on the active participation of mature trainees to help create performance
improvement interventions. This involvement of trainees does require a different
mind-set on the part of the trainer who must skillfully invite participation. A limitation
of the approach is that we anticipate that trainees will find scenistic approaches
personally motivating. Not all learners will find the methods attractive, however, and
trainers will need to help learners to understand the benefits of the approach.
A second important implication is that scenistic methods can encourage a
partnership among the participants: managers, trainers, learners. The method has
components that encourage guidance, creativity, grounding-of-practice, rehearsal, and
implementation in the field. This is a broad landscape and it offers many opportunities
for key stakeholder participation. A limitation and condition, however, is that the
method is relatively labor-intensive. Many training departments may not have the time
or resources available to consider using scenistic methods.
The partnership concept is quite different from the “us and them” arrangement in
many training situations. The invitation of learners to actively participate in the
shaping of their own learning tasks reflects much of the recent research on motivation
in the workplace with regards to involvement, participation, social facilitation,
reinforcement, and the regulation of learning. Some of these factors, for example
partnership and/or inviting learner creativity, may not be compatible with cultural and
leader interests and may be rejected out of hand. Scenistic approaches may seem to
some to be risky. This can be a limitation of any method vis-à-vis a given organizational
context.
The learners, in large measure, are creators of the content to be studied as realistic
issues and problems are examined, explained and shaped to provide the basis for
interventions aimed at improving performance. Learners are usually in the receiving
mode in the training setting. However, in the scenistic approach the trainer must
exhibit skills to encourage trainees to take on a partner role; most of the effort in the
training sessions is driven by the trainees. This could be a limitation of the method, as Scenistic
well. methods in
New approaches and methods of training and development enable managers,
trainers and facilitators to have at their disposal a more complete set of tools with training
which to enhance the knowledge, skills, and performance of employees. This article
sets forth details of scenistic methods that are well-grounded in the research of adult
learning and change. Scenistic methods are appealing to trainers and employees 429
because the methods deliberately reflect the situation or context in which the daily
work of the employees is carried out.
The use of scenistic methods requires the learners to be active, involved participants
as contrasted with methods in which learners are mostly passive recipients. It is more
than merely active participation; it is about creativity and innovation. The implication
is that scenistic methods may be better suited to mature, focused trainees. On the other
hand, one could make the case that one way to help trainees and employees become
more mature and competent is to involve them in training activities that require their
active involvement and participation.
In many instances the argument could be made that many learners are not
sufficiently prepared or motivated to engage in some of the activities of the approach
presented in this article. In the experience of the author, some managers express little
confidence in the abilities or motivation of their employees and these attitudes will
defeat the idea of adopting a scenistic method. Some of these managers may be
projecting their own inadequacies onto the people they hired. Frequently, our trainees
are more capable than we initially thought they were.
Many learners, however, want to be more active participants and their enthusiasm
may have some properties of contagion. Further, by being sensitive to the level and
degree of complexity introduced into the learning setting, trainers can moderate the
expectations of learners in order to diminish information overload. Some research has
shown that once learners become comfortable with a scenistic model, they want to
make use of the approach with reference to different issues and problems in the work
setting (see, for example, Lyons, 2006, 2003) as the model has broad applicability for a
variety of problem solving opportunities.

References
Ackerman, P.L. (1988), “Determinants of individual differences during skill acquisition: cognitive
abilities and information processing”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
Vol. 117 No. 3, pp. 288-318.
Anderson, J.R., Reder, L.M. and Simon, H.A. (1996), “Situated learning and education”,
Educational Researcher, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 5-11.
Bechtel, W. (1998), “Representations and cognitive explanation: assessing the Dynamicist’s
challenge in cognitive science”, Cognitive Science, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 295-318.
Brady, M. (2004), “Thinking big: a conceptual framework for the study of everything”, Phi Delta
Kappan, Vol. 86 No. 4, pp. 276-81.
Brown, J.S. (2000), “Growing up digital”, Change, March/April, pp. 10-20.
Brown, J.S., Collins, A. and Duguid, P. (1989), “Situated cognition and the culture of learning”,
Educational Researcher, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 32-41.
Bryman, A., Stephens, M. and Campo, C. (1996), “The importance of context: qualitative research
and the study of leadership”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 7, pp. 353-70.
JEIT Carver, R. (1996), “Theory for practice: a framework for thinking about experiential education”,
Journal of Experiential Education, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 8-13.
34,5
Cascio, W.F. and Aguinas, H. (2008), “Research in industrial and organizational psychology from
1963 to 2007: changes, choices, and trends”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 5,
pp. 1062-81.
Choi, J. and Hannafin, M. (1995), “Situated cognition and learning environments: roles, structures
430 and implications for design”, Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 43
No. 2, pp. 53-69.
Christensen, C.R., Garvin, D.A. and Sweet, A. (1991), Education for Judgment: The Artistry of
Discussion Leadership, Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA.
Dewey, J. (1933), How We Think, Heath, Lexington, MA.
Frese, M. (2007), “The psychological actions and entrepreneurial success: an action theory
approach”, in Baum, J.R., Frese, M. and Baron, R.A. (Eds), The Psychology of
Entrepreneurship, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 151-88.
Frese, M. and Zapf, D. (1994), “Action as the core of work psychology: a German approach”,
in Triandis, H.C., Dunnette, M.D. and Hough, J.M. (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Consulting Psychology Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 271-340.
Goel, L. (2009), “Situated learning in virtual worlds”, Doctoral Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 69
No. 8-A, p. 3210, February.
Hacker, W. (1998), General Work Psychology, Huber, Bern.
Johnson-Laird, P. (1980), “Mental models in cognitive science”, Cognitive Science, Vol. 4,
pp. 71-115.
Jonassen, D.H. (1991), “Evaluating constructivist thinking”, Educational Technology, Vol. 31
No. 9, pp. 28-33.
Jonassen, D.H. (1994), “Thinking technology: toward a constructivist design model”, Educational
Technology, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 34-7.
Kirschner, D. and Whitson, J. (Eds.) (1997), Situated Cognition: Social, Semiotic, and Psychological
Perspectives, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Kolb, D. (1984), Experiential Learning, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Labour, M. (2004), “Using a quality-led multimedia approach for interpersonal communication
training”, Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 185-214.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation,
Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Leleu-Merviel, S., Labour, M., Verclytte, L. and Vieville, N. (2002), “Script creation for the design
of lesson plans”, Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 5-16.
Lyons, P. (2003), “Influencing performance improvement using skill charting”, Journal of
European Industrial Training, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 398-404.
Lyons, P. (2004), “Constructing management skill scripts using case-based modeling”, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 676-94.
Lyons, P. (2005a), “Scripts creation training”, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 37 No. 6,
pp. 309-13.
Lyons, P. (2005b), “Scenistic models for instruction and training”, Training and Management
Development Methods, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 319-29.
Lyons, P. (2006), “Performance scripts creation: processes and applications”, Journal of European
Industrial Training, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 152-64.
Lyons, P. (2007a), “Experiential learning theory and the creation of performance scripts”, Journal Scenistic
of Business Management and Change, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 66-82.
Lyons, P. (2007b), “Creating performance templates for management development and employee
methods in
learning”, Training and Management Development Methods, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 359-71. training
Lyons, P. (2008), “Case-based modeling for learning management and interpersonal skills”,
Journal of Management Education, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 420-43.
Marcinelli, S.A. (1997), “Exploring links between creativity and leadership in organizations 431
stressing innovation”, Dissertation Abstracts International, Vol. 37, p. 2732.
Mezirow, J. (1990), Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Mezirow, J. (1998), “Transformative learning and social action: a response to Inglis”, Adult
Education Quarterly, Vol. 49, Fall, pp. 70-2.
Norman, D. (1993), “Cognition in the head and in the world: an introduction to the special issue on
situated cognition”, Cognitive Science, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 1-6.
Prohaska, E. (1994), A Study of Experiential Education and Its Relationship to Constructivism,
Master of Arts thesis, College of Norwich University, Norwich.
Salisbury, M. (2008), “From instructional systems design to managing the life cycle of knowledge
in organizations”, Performance Improvement Quarterly, Vol. 20 Nos 3/4, pp. 131-45.
Salomon, G. (1997), “No distribution without individual’s cognition: a dynamic interactional
view”, in Salomon, G. (Ed.), Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational
Considerations, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, pp. 111-38.
Schaffernicht, M. (2006), “Detecting and monitoring change in models”, System Dynamics Review,
Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 73-86.
Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline, Anchor Books, New York NY.
Sontag, M.E. (2008), “Facilitating learning transfer through students’ schemata”, Dissertation
Abstracts International, Vol. 68 No. 10, p. 4267.
Tichy, N.M. and Devanna, M.A. (1986), The Transformational Leader, John Wiley and Sons,
New York, NY.
Yukl, G. (2006), Leadership in Organizations, 6th ed., Pearson- Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River,
NJ.

Corresponding author
Paul Lyons can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints