Hi,

Has anyone tried deliberately using anchors in the classroom to calm, focus, excite the learners.
I was thinking in terms of how some teachers simply have to walk in front of a class to get their attention and I'm pretty sure it's because they are using anchors often without knowing it.

Hello Steve,

Have a look at Presenting Magically by Tad James & David Shepard. There's plenty about spatial anchoring in there and a whole lot more that will be useful in the classroom.

I worked in schools for a few years as an assistant and as an unqualified teacher.

I have actively used spatial anchors in story telling with foundation stage (age 3-5yrs) which is great because the children can begin to predict the mood of characters based on where I stand which they enjoy and are empowered by.

Alot of anchoring is done unconsciously by teachers and sometimes with terrible results.
Teachers often fail to understand why children remain in a negative state after ,for example, a class telling-off when they want to get on with a lesson - the teachers that move away and start thier teaching in another spot succeed in breaking state much more effectively than those who stay put.

Definitley a case of 'could do better' - if only they knew!

Katharine

Thanks for helping and I've had a look for the book in amazon - thanks

Hope you don't mind but I think I'm going to be asking a lot of questions here

As I played various anchoring strategies out in my mind - a few questions presented themselves and said hello



1) Do you wait until state has been achieved before moving into position and making any verbal and or hand gestures? or do you first deliberately create the state? If so how?

2) how many times do you need to anchor before using said anchor - is it best to use progressive anchors to move from highly different states or is it the case that fast works best.

3) If the whole class doesn't change state is it best to go back to previous state (if some pupils are still in that state) and then change again in order to pick up the stragglers - if so how can you amplify the state using anchors?

4) Is it best to anchor so called "undesirable" states such as boredom - in order to avoid creating unwanted anchors in places that you just don't know or as a method of pacing the students?

Hope my questions are clear - if not ask me

Cheers

There's a thread on classroom managemant you may find interesting which includes spatial anchoring.
There are a couple of things I'd like to comment on first -

If you are in rapport with your class you can lead and pace them (if they are not all in the state you want them in you need to work on rapport)
The anchors are based on your states, not theirs - you move to where you were previously excited / critical / dynamic / thoughtful and they should match you.

Why would you want to anchor boredom?! I would only do this if you were very adept at chaining spatial anchors and were showing the class where they could get to (ie a positive state)


Good luck and check out the other thread.

Katharine

Hi:

I don't have a whole lot of experience anchoring class rooms of people but I do spend alot of time anchoring people in general.



"1) Do you wait until state has been achieved before moving into position and making any verbal and or hand gestures? or do you first deliberately create the state? If so how?"

When you say, "wait until state has been achieved before moving into position" as opposed to, "deliberately create the state" what do you mean?

Are you referring to the difference between actually eliciting the state as opposed to sitting around and waiting for it to naturally emerge in the class?

In the interest of expediency, I would recommend, elicitation/creating your desired state whether it be curiousity, fascination, intense concentration. Waiting around for the state that you want could take all the day not to mention, that creating the actual state is relatively easy.



2) how many times do you need to anchor before using said anchor - is it best to use progressive anchors to move from highly different states or is it the case that fast works best.

Typically when I anchor, i'll elicit, calibrate, anchor. You know when I go to create a state, i'll check, "Did I get it?/ Am I getting it?" and as I do that if, I did, which it's hard not to because people will respond to just about whatever you say, i'll then anchor it. Often you can get away with a single simple elicitation and anchoring, after that it's just up to utilizing the anchor.

Sure repetition will, help but that's really the difference between Anchoring and Pavlovian Conditioning, it's not absolutely necessary for us to do it that way.

As far as utilizing progressive anchors, it all comes down to calibration if you are creating the state in the class and find that the states your going for are just too big of a leap for everyone, then of course you gonna need to chain it.

Also it depends on what your intention is, if your intention is to channel them away from a particular state then yes chaining them might not be such a bad idea.

Sometimes I find it's easier to just anchor that state spatially in the air and to quite literally set it aside so that I can, create a "clear space" and then begin creating other states, creativity, possibility, resourcefulness in it's spot.



3) If the whole class doesn't change state is it best to go back to previous state (if some pupils are still in that state) and then change again in order to pick up the stragglers - if so how can you amplify the state using anchors?

Personally, I would probably keep everyone in state, and attempt to tailor something else to bring in the "stragglers".

Tom Vizzinin and Kim McFarland do some pretty remarkable things with Anchoring, they have some things called the same state accelerator, that's a pretty good way about doing it. I don't want to go into that too much because that's their thing.

But something else I would use is, turn your anchors into sliding anchors and turn them up and down. Something else you could do is stack other pleasurable states on top of the learning states that you are creating. You know Add states of playfulness, pleasure, a sense of accomplishment to the states of curiousity, fascination, intense concentration.



4) Is it best to anchor so called "undesirable" states such as boredom - in order to avoid creating unwanted anchors in places that you just don't know or as a method of pacing the students?

Personally I don't find it really that useful to anchor many "undesirable" states, but if/when I do the only reason is so that I can set aside, and then clear a space out where I can begin to elicit states of like I said earlier, Curiousity, Creativity, Intense Concentration. For the most part, the students mind will go where ever you take them when your anchoring.

It all comes down to effective elicitations and effective calibration.


Chris

Hi Useful stuff Chris.
I would add some points
It can be useful to anchor undesirable states in the classroom for a number of reasons.

Firstly you can use and anchor as part of your innoculation against unhelpful states either because they exist at the time ( bored or uninterested students) or because they may occur during a lesson.

Anchoring a negative state can be the first step in leading a group to more desirable states. So if the group or members of the group are not engaged. Then you go immediately to the anchored stae and lead them through a range of states from interest to facination etc so you have the group (or individual) in the state you want for voracious learning as quickly and efficiently as possible. So if at some point one student says - whats the point - this is boring! You immediately go back to the anchor for that state and swiftly move them through to a useful learning state. You can chain or slide these states spatially. I like spatial sliding anchors cos they are sooo elegant!

Kate:

That is a very intelligent utilization of anchoring.


Chris

State-chaining with anchoring is taught in any good trainers training, as is 'nested loops'. Though usually this is taught as a formula people plan in advance, not as a flexible skill to be used as needed based on student responses (as Kate described!).

My view on nested loops is that, mostly, it's mental masturbation -- for trainers to impress each other. I believe I'm exceedingly good at them, because I spent a decade getting good at constructing them and timing them to my audiences' responses. And yet, if you screw up even marginally with nested loops (close them in the wrong order, for example!), then the "package" of information & emotional transitions is broken, and you have to go back -- typically to the beginning -- to start again. By contrast, if you're doing state-chaining, if you screw up, typically you only need to back up one step & continue on. All the work you've done thus far isn't lost. So -- it's a much more practical skill for most presenters. Additionally -- why on Earth would any sane person attempt to learn nested loops without first having mastered state-chaining to serious depths of skill? It's an amusing question, at best.

I spend most of my Holographic Communication training getting students to truly master state-chaining way beyond just 'knowing the mechanics.'

I like Kate's reply the most here because it shows the use of state-chaining for real-time flexible adjustment of students' states. I.e. not just pre-planned sequences -- which are invariably useless for most audiences. Nice contribution, Kate!

Here's another opinion: Using anchoring in state-chaining is all about flexibility, precision, and damned targeted timing -- and even further -- it requires attention be focused both internally and externally, concurrently. (Which is one of my biggest criticisms of typical trainers trainings -- people emerge with a formula of what to do onstage, which isn't timed to audience responses, let alone responsive to audience behavior -- and then many students spend most of their time onstage presenting some pre-planned sequence, with their attention firmly directed internally -- and ignoring the audience).

To take someone who goes entirely internal when they walk onstage (describes most new trainers I've met in my travels), and get them to a place where they can (1) access information in their memories, (2) construct an effective presentation on the fly, and (3) be sufficiently externally oriented to utilize audience responses -- takes a range of unique exercise drills that are designed to transition students through that metaprogram change -- and then to maintain the new metaprogram whilst onstage. That's one of the most valuable and critical transitions any speaker must make if they desire to earn a living with public speaking.

Enjoy....

- Jonathan Altfeld

Hi Jonathan
I think you highlight something important here and I am going to be a bit contentious! I think there is a big big difference between teaching and training. Trainers ( especially some NLP trainers) seem to operate on a plan- deliver - get results basis. Teaching isn't like this! You plan - walk in - throw the plan out the window cos of what is going on - use the learning opportunities in the class - maybe get back to the plan if you are lucky! So the key NLP skills are utilisation, anchoring, and Milton Language patterns. You also need flexibility, tenacity and tap shoes!
Thanks for the nice comments.
Kate

(I don't think you're being contentious with my position at all, here, Kate. *wink!* )
- Jonathan

Hey Jonathan - It wasn't as a complex equivelence!!
K

Hi Jonatha:

I like the contrast that you drew between nesting loops and chaining states.

I do have a question though.

If nesting loops is so difficult to edit by contrast to chaining states if one mispeaks, what is the pay off of using that particular patterning?

Chris

Long Post Alert! Skip this one if you're pressed for time!

Hi Chris,I know you asked this question to Jonathan, so I hope you won't mind if I poke my nose into the conversation...

Over the years, I've used loops, both in doing changework and in training NLP, and it seems to me that I've used them both well and, very occasionally, badly. And I'd have to say that I agree with Jonathan's evaluation.

So what's the pay-off then?

The pay-off comes a ways down the road.

In my own experience, loops work best when they are used extemporaneously. After all, Milton Erickson, arguably the master of embedded loops, used them that way in doing everyday changework. For him, they were effortless, comfortable and extremely powerful.

That also speaks to Erickson's level of skill and years of practice. He, a Japanese kendo practitioner might say, used the sword until the sword disappeared. That is to say, he was unconsciously competent in using it so that the structure could just happen unconsciously, without the need to plan it out in detail in advance. So, when I said effortless, perhaps it should be said that it requires a lot of effort to make something effortless, the difference is where and when the effort goes...

One occasion where I used looping badly, in terms of achieving my outcome, was in a training where I designed them in. I wrote them into the flow of the evening. I found that it felt artificial and didn't work nearly so well in creating and holding attention as it normally does for me. So, the lesson I got out of that was, once you've got the skill set and have practised it till it just happens, let it happen and it works great. Overstructure kills. At least that was true for me, your experiences may vary.

So, once you've gotten to the point that they just happen in what you do, and you notice yourself doing it without having thought about it, that's when it works and, in my experience, when it works most effectively. And used like that, they might be one of the most powerful tools in NLP or hypnosis.

However, it's not just one thing, it's everything. Using everything in a systematic way, adding in things as they become second-nature to you and practising them until that's true and then adapting them to your own style of interaction is, I think, key.

I think that really effective use of loops in teaching/training/changework also require someone to be a compelling speaker as well as a masterful storyteller (two overlapping but not identical skill sets, I think). Watch the way that a great comedian will use loops and threads in a monologue and I think you'll see what I mean. Loops contribute to holding an audience's rapt attention, but only if the delivery is also up to snuff.

Then again, effective elicitation, installation and deployment of state chains require ace presenting skills, it's just that the state chains themselves are easier to manage.

And I also think Kate was right to point out the considerable differences between a classroom full of kids who would rather be playing and a training room full of adults who paid to be there. A great story, compellingly told, is the one teaching skill that will capture highest percentage of interest in either room, in my own experience.

That's my two cents worth, at any rate! A great thread, everyone, and I look forward to other responses!

Be Well,

Michael Perez

Hi Kate,

You've made what I think are some great points and one I'd like to chime in on...You know, what you describe as teaching also tracks with some of the best trainings and workshops I've ever attended.

If more NLP trainers would develop the skill set and attitudes needed to really make use of the learning opportunities in the class, not because they have to but because they're lucky enough to have them, there would be an awful lot more great training going on, I hallucinate! If one goes into things with an eye towards utilization, the plan will still be there when you're done!

Be Well,

Michael Perez

Sure there are some skills that can be adapted but sorry they are totally different roles and ask very different duties of the individual. Pastoral care, differentiation, behavior management, paper work, paper work, paper work, justifying yourself to parents and HODs etc. When is the last time you knew a trainer 'train' from 9 - 3.30 and during the gaps monitor the communal areas of the venue. Or a trainer 'train' from 9-3.30 for 9 months of the year without giving the same session twice? or using the same joke or story twice? Have you tried delivering a session to a group of students who speak 7 different languages with short attention spans in 1 group and keep them all on task? I am sure you could come up with a snazzy afternoon of entertainment for them but now try and teach the curriculum set with the physical resources available to the average teacher.

Has any trainer out there ever had a situation where the delegates would plan the most embarrasing thing possible for you and then sticking it on you tube? Any trainers ever had chav'vy parents storm in to your seminar room looking to fight you because you told his son that hitting someone back is not a way to deal with situations.

After many days spent teaching in Primary and Middle years education I now teach (or is it train?) teachers. There are some transerrable skills, of course there are, but most teachers time is not spent performing in front of paying delagates who are self motivating and have no repurcussions as to whether they pass or not.

fhew, that felt good.....

I look forward to hearing from other teacher / trainer perspectives.

Matt

Glad you are feeling better now Matt
Like you I now teach teachers and it is a breeze compared to dealing with the trials of schools and colleges. there are many many areas of teachers work that go unrecognised and unrewarded as you so clearly state.
I think what I was getting at and Michael picked up is that there is a difference in focus with teaching. Maybe great teachers and great trainers do the same sort of things and maybe the terms are false distinctions. In some languages 'teach' and 'learn' are the same word. so if they don't learn you ain't taught!
I work a lot with Richard Bandler and he is a great teacher in my book because he knows where a the students are at at any given time. He says that no two Practitioners should be the same because no two groups or the people in them are the same. A great teacher thinks what are they learning? what do they need to learn? How are they doing? Maybe great trainers do the same thing. Whereas some trainers I have seen seem to think what am I training - how well am I doing?
Personally I will always describe myself as a teacher - probably because it fits with my chosen paradigm and trainers are something you run in!
Kate

Hi Matt, I'm not sure that anyone was saying anything different in this thread, but I also know that perceptions can differ.

Personally, I've got many friends who are teachers and I know that their job is an important one and it's one that they do with a level of passion and commitment to an essential role that's entirely out of proportion to their paychecks and hours worked, in my opinion.

Kate's characterization of my thinking here is spot on and I agree with what you say here as well. It seems there are some skills that can be used in both roles, but the two roles are very dissimilar in many if not most respects aside from the most essential one, imparting knowledge and skills to others.

Thanks for your passionate and informative post!

Be Well,

Michael Perez

Steve Middleton:

I was just reading over this whole thread again. And honestly I can say that i've personally gotten alot from this short exchange with everyone on the thread.

Have you essentially gotten answers to everything that you were asking?

Chris

Another great source of classroom management techniques is Michael Grinder (particularly the EnVoy series of courses and books). More here: MGA Products

Cheers

Paul