`It’s a Living Thing’: a Neuro-Linguistic Programming Perspective on Essay Writing

Paul Tosey, UK

Dr Paul Tosey is a senior lecturer in the School of Management, University of Surrey, UK, where he leads a project researching NLP and adult learning (www.NLPresearch.org). In 2007 he was awarded a Higher Education Academy National Teaching Fellowship. He is a Master Practitioner in NLP, and a Certified Clean Language Facilitator.
E-mail: P.Tosey@surrey.ac.uk

Menu

Introduction
The Practice Context
Method
The Frame
The Seven Stages
Conclusion
Reference

Introduction

A few years ago, my postgraduate students asked me for guidance on how to write essays. Although there is much standard guidance available, my impression was that it seemed over-rationalised and prescriptive. I then realised that there were some excellent essay writers among former participants on this programme. Putting this together with my training in Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP), I decided to enquire into their successful strategies.

In essence, I used a form of NLP modelling (e.g. Dilts, R. B. 1998) to enquire into to the internal processing involved in essay-writing. My intent was to explore how people who achieve excellent grades actually did write essays - to develop descriptions of what happens in the experience of the essay-writer, not what ought to happen in theory, or according to the assessor or so-called expert.

Even though this was a limited study (of four exemplars) the results were richer than I or the participants anticipated, so seemed worth writing up. The model highlights affective and imaginal dimensions of the process, which often seem absent from accounts presented in the literature on essay-writing (this literature is not explored in the present article).

The model has since been shared with several different cohorts of the same programme, approximately eighty participants altogether. Generally, students have reported that the model has been helpful both to sensitise them to the essay-writing process and to help them identify potential gaps or deficiencies in their own existing strategies.

This article briefly describes the postgraduate programme concerned, and the nature of the modelling method used. It then describes the model itself, titled `It’s a Living Thing’, which consists of an overall frame plus seven stages.

The Practice Context

I include a brief description of the programme context, which is specialised. The University of Surrey’s MSc Change Agent Skills and Strategies (CASS), which began in 1992, is an advanced, experiential, enquiry-based course based on principles of humanistic education. Participants are postgraduates experienced in their field - coaching, organisational consultancy or a similar area. There is an annual intake an annual intake of approximately 20 students, who study the programme as a cohort, all of whom meet an entry criterion that requires them to be familiar with their own personal development. They are therefore experienced at reflecting on their skills and personal process. The teaching strategy is strongly facilitative (Heron, J. 1999) and there is extensive, formalised usage of self and peer assessment.

Each module has two pieces of assessment, one a practical developmental task, which is negotiated, and the other essay-style written assignment of 3500 words. Typically the essay is a conceptual, critical reflection on issues arising from the developmental task. Essays are assessed against a criterion-referenced marking scheme (based on national level descriptors) and are written in an academic mode, not in report or personal journal format. We permit and indeed encourage students to write in the first person, emphasising the need for them to use their own experience critically as a source of data.

Method

While Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) has come to be identified as a working practice, originally it was described as a methodology (Bandler, R. & Grinder, J. 1975:6), the purpose of which was to discern the distinctive patterns used by exemplary communicators. Summaries of NLP have appeared in other articles in the HLT journal and in, for example, Tosey and Mathison ( 2003); see also our project website, www.NLPresearch.org.

Modelling (Bostic St.Clair, C. & Grinder, J. 2001;Dilts, R. B. 1998;Gordon, D. & Dawes, G. 2005) is a process that uses NLP frameworks to construct a multi-perspective ‘map' of a particular skill or quality. This typically includes investigation into language patterns and behaviour, with interest in thought processes and other aspects of internal experience, though the definition and nature of modelling is contested within NLP. For reference, the approach in this study primarily reflects Dilts’ analytic modelling, and is influenced too by Lawley & Tompkins’ ( 2000) `Symbolic Modelling’.

The usual aim of modelling is to identify, and then to replicate or enable others to learn, internal processing strategies that are assumed to lie behind everyday capabilities such as spelling, motivating oneself, negotiating, and so on. I took essay writing to be an example of such a capability, albeit one that is relatively complex and distributed over time.

Four participants who had gained consistently the best essay marks on the programme in the previous five years were identified as potential `exemplars’. All four were female (the gender profile on this programme is typically two-thirds female to one-third male). They agreed to be interviewed face to face, for approximately an hour and a half, to elicit information that would potentially be of benefit to current and future students on the same programme. I confirmed that the exemplars would remain anonymous, and that they would have the opportunity to comment on and correct the recording and sense-making of their input. They all agreed to permit further use of the data for the purpose of academic publications.

Data collection took the form of qualitative interviews, with some emphases distinctive to and drawn from NLP. Most importantly, in each interview, I ensured that the participant `reassociated’ with a specific experience of essay writing. The aim was to elicit descriptions of the experience as if it were happening in the present, not to elicit retrospective reflections about essay-writing. This was achieved, for example, by asking the interviewee to identify a specific essay; to recall the environment in which the various phases of the process took place; and to notice the feelings or physical sensations of that context as-if experiencing them in the present. This was assisted by framing interview questions and comments in the present rather than the past tense. For example, this meant saying, `So now, as you are sitting here, about to begin writing…’, rather than (say), `How did you begin to write?’.

I then guided the participant through time, starting with the point when (according to the participant) the essay process began, and maintaining the re-associated state as-if in the present. While the participant described their experience, I also attended to their language and to their non-verbal behaviour. For example I drew from NLP’s `meta-model’ (Bandler, R. et al. 1975) to clarify or elaborate on patterns in the interviewee’s statements.

As an example one category of the meta-model is `nominalisations’, which refers to the transformation of a process into a noun-form. One interviewee referred to `setting up a filter’ while studying the module in question. Here `filter’ is considered a nominalisation, in that the word itself represents the notion of a filter as a noun, or quasi-entity. For the purposes of developing a model, I needed to know how what this filter did; how it was created and how it functioned for this person. In short, I need to understand `filtering’, not `the filter’. I therefore responded in a way that turned the noun back into a verb or process form (e.g. `so, how specifically are you filtering….?’), and attended to both the verbal and non-verbal responses.

Another important aspect of the modelling interview was to aim for sensory-specific descriptions of experience. In the example of `filtering’, the aim was to probe beyond the conceptual description to discover what the interviewee actually experienced – what did she see, hear and feel? Here the interviewee’s description included the following:

`(The filter) rings a bell. Goes `ping’. Connects with me as something to do with the essay. A very sensory connection with it. It will resonate. A flag that waves when something connects with the topic. I read something then sense this here (indicates solar plexus), it goes `aha’ (gestures up from solar plexus to throat and out through mouth).’

Non-verbal responses are considered in NLP to give important data about the person’s internal process, which again can be explored in an interview. In this example, the gesture upwards and outwards from the solar plexus seemed potentially significant so I asked the participant to comment on what was happening for her. She then expanded on the sensory experience associated with the gesture, as well as commenting on what it seemed to signify as she was doing it. It is also relevant and helpful whilst modelling to seek a `live demonstration’ of an experience. In this instance it meant asking the interviewee to do the filtering here and now. Observation of the non-verbal behaviour this elicited was as important as, if not more so than, the interviewee’s verbal report of their experience of the filtering.

All participants remarked, at the end of the interview, on their (pleasant) surprise at appreciating how rich and detailed the essay-writing process was for them.

I took extensive notes during the interviews. At the time I had no access to funds that would pay for transcription of audio tapes, so to offset the limitations of note-taking I wrote more detailed retrospective notes immediately after each interview, creating a word-processed description in the interviewee’s own words, so far as possible, of their process through time. I sent each account to the relevant interviewee and asked them to amend any contents that they felt were either inaccurate or not their own words. At most, participants made minor amendments to the wording.

Next I reviewed each account to pick out patterns using a range of NLP frames. I was interested particularly in statements of belief (e.g. `I wouldn’t say I’m a good essay writer’) and metaphors or imagery (`it’s like a tapestry or weaving’). Other NLP frameworks applied included `metaprograms’ (Charvet, S. R. 1997). Thus one metaprogram called `towards – away’ indicates that, in a given context, some people will be oriented more towards achievement of goal, while others will be oriented to avoid something undesirable. One participant’s account included emphasis on doing well at essays in order to avoid feeling a failure (an `away from’ metaprogram), whereas others indicated more of `towards’ pattern (e.g. `An essay will take me further to where I want to be’).

The final stage of the analysis, which involved several iterations, was to look for patterns in the strategies described by each exemplar. Here the intent was to identify themes that could guide other students, whilst acknowledging variations and differences between interviewees.

The temporal sequences described by each interviewee appeared similar enough to justify portraying essay-writing as a sequence of stages within an overall frame of beliefs or principles. This punctuation of experience is undoubtedly a synthesis that represents my own interpretation of the experiences of four individuals. I would not wish to claim that it is generic, or that other interpretations are not possible, or that work with other exemplars would not change it. However the resulting model is authentic in that it is based on the data and does not, to the best of my knowledge, significantly misrepresent the exemplars’ experience.

To test its authenticity I asked the four exemplars to comment. All responded, and with one exception said they recognised this as a good representation of their own process, which they found illuminating as well as faithful to their experience. The exception was that one participant said she was only conscious of starting the process part way through. She recognised and felt happy with the description of the later stages, but was not conscious of using the earlier stages.

The final stage in producing the model was to write it up for students. The title `It’s a Living Thing’, is a verbatim comment from one of the interviews (apparently it is also the title of a song by the Electric Light Orchestra, which I promise is wholly coincidental). This section describes the main features of the essay-writing model, an overall frame, and seven stages, as represented in figure 1. The description includes illustrative quotes from the exemplars.

Figure 1: summary of the frame and the seven stages

The Frame

The frame comprises beliefs about, and attitudes towards, essay-writing. These aspects appeared to be preliminary to, or to create a context for, the seven stages, hence the notion of forming a frame.

The frame has several features. One that seems especially significant, hence its appearance in the title, is the idea that an essay is alive – hence the choice of quote for the title;

I want to be engaged by it. There’s part of me that wants it to be a living thing. If I’m going to spend all this time on it, it’s got to be alive.

This is reflected also in organic or artistic metaphors in the exemplars’ accounts. The metaphor of giving birth is present in some of the exemplars’ comments, and emphasises the way an essay can be conceived, nurtured and even at times become all-consuming. Later (see stage 7, `letting go’), it can be difficult to separate oneself from the essay in order to hand it in for assessment.

Second, it is interesting that not all the exemplars believe themselves to be good essay writers (`I wouldn’t say I’m a good essay writer. I struggle with it, I probably struggle with it differently to other people’) . What is common is that doing well is meaningful and important for each exemplar, whether because it helps them to realise their potential, or because it affirms their capabilities. In one case, it was to avoid the discomfort of receiving a poor mark (i.e. an `away from’ motivation in terms of NLP metaprograms). Thus:

An essay will take me further to where I want to be. I’m pushing the boundaries more each time, which is scary, creating, trying out my own ideas, finding my voice.

Good marks are affirming, especially of my intellect, which is important after having children and the career choice I made. So I do care about whether I get a good mark. It’s about getting something back, affirmation.

Third, there is a shared sense of being able to take charge of the process and to approach an essay in a way that meets the author’s learning needs. This resembles what is referred to in NLP as being `at cause’. For example:

I take my own authority. It (the essay) is not imposed, even though I could treat it that way. I take responsibility, experience it as something I am in charge of, rather than be defiant or compliant. It becomes quite a pleasurable challenge.

How do I make this work for me? What are my objectives? I’m paying for this, it’s my responsibility to get as much out as I can. I’m making a high investment in the programme, financially and emotionally.

Fourth, a related feature of the frame was the tendency to perceive there to be freedom within whatever constraints the essay question, requirements or formal assessment criteria imposed:

The constraint feels like a boundary, it’s not limitless or insurmountable. It’s freedom to swim around in the pool, or take a path that’s not been trodden before. The boundary is safety, helpful, fixing. I can weave in and out of the lanes in the swimming pool.

The Seven Stages

1 Setting a filter The point at which the essay writing process begins is significant. For three of the four exemplars, it is at a very early stage. Students on this programme are given a Study Guide for each module, which declares the assignment brief, in advance of the first face-to-face contact. Three exemplars read the title at the start of the module, rather than towards the end of the contact time.

I clock what the essay question is. Does it make sense to me? Am I comfortable with it? Do I like the question?

I glance through the question. Had to train myself to really get to grips with what was being asked. Had a real resistance to understanding the questions at first. I started to pay more attention to the Study Guide around module 4 or 5.

There are lots of emotions around this (reading the title). I’m excited by it. It’s a challenge.

This is contradicted by the fourth exemplar, who says they do not read the title or consciously plan an essay, and describes the process as working through `osmosis’.

I glance through the question but don’t plan, not at all. I don’t even have an outcome in my head. I bash it out, also (while) reading – a parallel process. Osmosis, that’s how it works. The act of reading the title triggers a process that is common to the same three exemplars. It creates (in the words of one exemplar) a `filter’ that, while not fully conscious or deliberate, notices and develops connections between experiences, reading of texts and the essay title. This type of process was common to these three exemplars. While there were individual differences, for all it was a notably multi-sensory rather than purely cognitive process, involving visual imagery, sounds and kinesthetics.

This sets up a filter thing. Possibilities coming up in my brain all the time. Not at the front of or dominating awareness, but there.

I go through the module picking up bits and pieces. I need to be putting things into the toolkit as I go along. Things start to chime. I need to be looking for signposts, get the germ of the idea, bring in new learning.

This feels intuitive. There is a resonance with the nature of the work I’m doing. It’s a stomach response, a gut feeling.

As a variation, one exemplar referred explicitly to taking a very tactical approach to the essay, for example attempting to read cues from the tutor:

I can be very tactical. I’m conscious of the audience. Who is assessing this? What are their specialities, their interests, their `bear traps’ (so as to avoid a `cardinal sin’)? I `read’ the tutor, they all drop hints about what they like.

2 Gathering the pieces of the jigsaw

The filtering enables a process of gathering materials, which one exemplar described as `pieces of the jigsaw’, from both reading and from experience, that later become shaped into the essay. The connections noticed through the filter are noted down, and the exemplars collect piles of notes. This is where systematic reading of the recommended (and other) literature fits into the process.

It’s about gathering bits of the jigsaw. It all goes into a big pile (on the desk), in no particular order.

I may have done background reading as I’ve been going through the learning contract. I read relevant books, I will have copied out quotes with references.

Reading is multi-levelled and complex. I’m holding softly in the background – not too hard, just present; the title, the map of structure, which models to use – which I’ve probably chosen beforehand; critical reflection – consciously `what do I think of this’?; getting examples of the points I want to make. This sounds complex but it makes the reading simpler and organised.

These all build into parts of the essay. Sometimes I piece it together. Sometimes I’m more structured about it, for example I write down elements, strap lines.

Everything is a resource to writing the assignment. A lot of it (essay writing) is about picking up resources.

3 Mapping the whole

Having gathered material, the next phase involves creating an initial holistic sense or representation of the essay. Two exemplars referred to using mind-mapping or `spidergrams’ to lead to this. For the others, a more imaginal or intuitive sense of the whole emerges.

The first thing I will physically do is a mind map. The act of doing it tells me whether I’m ready (to write). I may have a couple of goes at it.

I reconnect with the title. I do a spidergram of all the elements (i.e. the straplines). I keep referring back to the title – is there anything I’ve missed? What do I need to critique?

I can almost feel something comes together, kind of gut, stuff comes together then it comes out, (this) provides the impetus.

I have to have a sense of the whole, a holistic picture, how this will look. I need to feel comfortable with the shape. It’s visual thinking.

Having a sense of the flow is important. Knowing the beginning, middle and end points. This doesn’t (come clear) all at once, it also emerges (later) through writing. By the time I sit down to write I have a sense of the angle and my argument.

4 Sitting at the edge of the unknown

This stage is an important threshold. Exemplars refer in various ways to a transition from the previous phases, which help to conceptualise the essay, into the act of writing. One describes this vividly as being `at the edge of the unknown’, and acknowledges the types of anxiety or negative beliefs that can arise. Another describes how, at this point, the essay can appear a `big thing’.

The interviews described different tactics for moving into the act of writing. One is to remain curious at this edge, neither giving in to the negatives nor trying to overcome them by rushing forward, thus staying open to `what might emerge’.

There is uncertainty and anxiety at the beginning, at the edge of the unknown. The risk at this point is to make negative predictions - `I can’t do this; it’s too difficult; there’s too much reading; not enough time; I don’t know enough’ – all forms of flight, that take lots of energy. It’s more useful to sit at the edge of the unknown and feel curious. Stay open to what might emerge.

The second tactic is to use indicators of readiness to write, which included the state of the mind map, the quantity of material and the ability to write an introduction.

The act of doing it (the mind map) tells me whether I’m ready (to write).

Also, is the pile big enough? Have I got enough of these (notes)? Have I got the mind map in narrative form?

The third tactic is to `just do it’ – to jump in and engage with the writing rather than lingering on the edge.

Rather than postponing endlessly, I aim just to get on with it. I get through the difficulty through the experience of being in it; go past that and it becomes easier.

I just write out of my head, that will tell me what I know and don’t know. Where the gaps are. After the first tranche of writing I will do a word count – how far in am I?

I have all sorts of little devices for doing this. For example do 10% of the job straight away, it stops it becoming something big in my head, makes it more manageable, approachable.

The exemplars’ ability to move through this threshold may be indicated by the fact that, while requests for essay extensions are common on this programme (students are part-time, generally in full-time work), not one of the exemplars mentioned using extensions.

5 Writing (crafting)

If the foregoing phases represent the art of formulating the essay, the writing represents the craft and the graft.

As preparation for writing, exemplars typically plan time, some reserving whole days or weekends. Two also refer to using specific locations for writing.

I often go back to my parents’ house, which is comfortable and peaceful. I call it an essay weekend. My partner is also doing a Masters course so this is ok.

I write in my study space at home, at the top of the house, away from everyone else. This is not my work space. I might do the reading while lying on the bed. Being in a looser environment is part of the pleasure.

As for the writing itself, tactics again vary. One exemplar emphasises the importance of writing the introduction first, and using this as an `anchor’ for the whole essay; another writes the introduction at the end.

I step back and come up with the introduction. I often notice a quote that I agree or disagree with to kick it off.

The introduction is the most important part. I spend a long time on it, it’s the anchor for the whole thing. When it’s nailed it explains the whole essay. It’s the essence of the essay, it states an opinion what I’m going to argue… and conclude. It’s more than a dry description. It’s what I’ve made of this; the journey, what I have put into it of myself; and this is what you’re going to experience as a reader. I make it punchy.

The introduction rarely changes then (though it is there to be changed). I put a structure on it posthumously – I write the introduction at the end, which can lead to more revising.

Writing involves all the exemplars in sustained effort. Features of this process include awareness of `chunking’ the writing into a number of sessions;

I probably write 3 or 4 edits, or more. This includes leaving it alone for a while, leaving it to sit. Sometimes at this point the edit might be very radical, I might drop an entire area of argument or bring in something new – it can be quite daunting but can produce a sharper piece of work.

I do the essay in three, no two big stints. The first is usually within a few days or a week of the second block. Each stint is an `essay day’, uninterrupted, 4 to 5 hours.

I will probably spend 2 or 3 days writing. It’s most successful when I have a big chunk, e.g. a weekend.

The crafting of the essay is an immersive experience, with repeated reading through of what has been written so far:

I’m fully engaged while I’m writing.

(While I’m writing) I will read the essay through from the beginning, almost every time I add a new paragraph (to check that it flows).

Then I go back over it, that’s the craft. I keep going back and shaping it. The re-reading is clarifying my thought process. I can see if it holds together or doesn’t. Then I revise and I revise and I revise. Five, six or seven times is the norm. (Am doing two things in revising) 1. Trying to get it perfect; 2. Clarifying my thought process.

I start broad then narrow down. I will be very disciplined with myself in the narrowing down. (When I’ve looked at other essays I’ve said `there’s too much paint on your palette, throw some away’). E.G. I will allow myself one concept, one theory and one facet of that theory. I will be absolutely clear about what the argument is, and the 3 or 4 key concepts. The mind map helps with this.

There is always a tug to put in more of this, more of that. In fact I’ve found it’s more interesting with what you take away.

There is also much cycling back, making regular reference to the literature and notes from the `gathering pieces of the jigsaw’ phase, as well as to the question, assessment criteria, mind-map, and/or the previously written introduction:

I refer back to books the whole time. I go back and read again more fully when I’ve done the spidergram. This takes time but it’s worth it because the essay flows. I will be reading as I’m writing, (for example trying) a completely different interpretation.

Then I go back to the hand-written notes. I put in some stuff from the notes, then will check the assessment criteria before I start to incorporate all the theory. I can then get a feel for, is it X enough, too much? Also, do I need to read more?

From this point the criteria become an important focus. I will also have the self-assessment in mind. Also the preferences of the audience.

I will track through the summary at the start – is it reflected in the essay? Because I weave, there is a very real danger that it gets disconnected. I also tell the reader how I’ve read the question.

Also noteworthy is that two exemplars referred here to using standard guidance on essay technique from previous university study. For example:

I had a standard template for writing at University, e.g. each paragraph to have its own point.

I have a very black and white view, a clear sense of what the structure (of an essay) ought to be (e.g. re each paragraph; following the argument through).

6 Refining: `written but still alive’

Even when the essay is written, the work is far from finished. The exemplars seem to gain a sense of distance or greater detachment from the essay at this point, and can then engage in refining and polishing, sometimes almost obsessively.

At this stage I’m not too personally connected to it, though still very personally involved – e.g. can spend 2 hours without moving (while I’m editing).

(After the second stint) the essay is written but still alive. It will change. I take it with me, carry it around and keep re-reading it. It’s polishing. I’m fanatical about presentation, the font, grammar (etc.)

Then I leave a gap between finishing and handing it in – as little as a day or two, enough to get some distance from it. Then I enjoy editing, finessing it. Putting the icing on the cake. It’s now formed (versus unformed, chaotic at the start), becomes more pleasurable.

At this stage too, exemplars seek to read the essay as it will come across to the reader. Exemplars can, having gained some distance, take the reader’s perspective. It is also at this stage that they will ask other people to read the essay – typically this is someone close to them.

(I believe that, as a reader) if you need to re-read anything because you can’t make sense of it, it spoils the flow.

I read it through, get other people to read it through. My partner will have read through earlier versions.

I’m not attached, can get some distance. I can imagine myself into the reader’s position

I never show people my essays (the dissertation was a much more social process). My partner reads them at the end, it’s a sense check, I make occasional changes to syntax but not to substance.

7 Letting go

Finally, although it may seem obvious, the exemplars reported the need for some criterion to be fulfilled before they could let go of the essay. The impression is that some are unwilling to let go and that, if there were no external trigger, some might never actually `give birth’.

Criteria were numerous, and each exemplar seemed to use more than one. These included:

• an internal sense of it being finished, perhaps being satisfied that the question has been answered
• having allowed enough time
• having been through the appropriate writing process
• having read it through enough times
• running out of time (with regard to the external deadline)
• losing interest.

I have a sense that it’s good enough; that I’ve allowed enough time; that I’ve done the reading; that I’ve been in the flow, experienced it as creative. Otherwise it would not be easy to be unattached.

I find it hard to say I’ve finished. I can always find ways to improve it, I’m nervous handing it in. But when I know I’ve had long enough (and have) re-read it five or six times, I feel comfortable enough to let go.

I’m someone who’s never happy with the final version, there is always something I could do better. I have a `be perfect’ driver. But I could drive myself crazy with this so I just finish.

Partly word count. Partly I don’t have more time so I let go. I do a final edit and spell-check and a final run through the assessment criteria.

(I know I’ve finished when) I’m happy with what I’ve done.

It holds together, is well expressed, answers the question, (I get ) a kind of feeling of completion, the whole things flows, I can see the argument, that it’s original work, and that I’ve concluded it.

Conclusion

The model presented here is based on a limited study of four exemplars on a particular postgraduate programme. It offers insights into the process of writing, emphasising its mix of order and chaos, and of crafting and creativity. It indicates that for these exemplars writing is very personal experience, not merely a performative reproduction of knowledge that is an end in itself. The use of NLP modelling has helped to highlight affective and imaginal dimensions of essay-writing, aspects that may be under-researched and under-represented in texts on the subject.

Reference

Bandler, R. & Grinder, J. 1975. The Structure of Magic: a book about language and therapy. Palo Alto:Science and Behavioural Books.

Bostic St.Clair, C. & Grinder, J. 2001. Whispering in the Wind. Scotts Valley, CA: J & C Enterprises.

Charvet, S. R. 1997. Words That Change Minds: mastering the language of influence. Kendall/Hunt: Dubuque, Iowa.

Dilts, R. B. 1998. Modeling with NLP. Capitola, CA: Meta Publications.

Gordon, D. & Dawes, G. 2005. Expanding your world: modelling the structure of experience. www.expandyourworld.net: Desert Rain.

Heron, J. 1999. The Complete Facilitators Handbook. London: Kogan Page.

Lawley, J. & Tompkins, P. 2000. Metaphors in Mind: transformation through symbolic modelling. London: The Developing Company Press.

Tosey, P. & Mathison, J. 2003. Neuro-linguistic Programming and Learning Theory: a response. The Curriculum Journal, 14(3): 361-378.

Please check the NLP for Teachers course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the Teaching Advanced Students course at Pilgrims website.