Matthew Richter posts daily comments in LinkedIn—well, almost daily. You can follow him and join the conversation by going to http://linkedin.com/in/matthew-richter-0738b84.

For the benefit of our readers, we decide to compile and reprint some of his provocative pieces from the past. Let us know what you think.

Co-Facilitation

Whose bright idea was this? Personally, I hate having to co-facilitate. I hate having to pay attention to someone other than the participants. I hate that my co-facilitator can’t read my mind and figure where I am taking things. If I had my way, the best co-facilitator would be seen and not heard.

I am obviously hyperbolizing and being extreme for a reason (I hope). Good co-facilitation is never about each other. Rather it is seamless teamwork, placing the needs of the learners always above the needs of the trainers. It is finding ways to hear and build effectively without simply taking a turn to hear your own voice. It is to ensure all participants are heard and can improve their skills throughout the process. I actually love a great co-facilitator. They are hard to find, but when you do, never let them go.

Fair and Balanced

Often this is a stupid idea. Rarely are there two equally valid sides to an issue. We Americans, particularly, have fallen into the trap of trying to live among false dichotomies. There are right answers and wrong answers. Murder is always wrong. This is a moral stance. In L&D, there are intellectual rights and wrongs and we cannot just claim there are two sides to all issues. Learning styles, disposition, and other myths perpetuate under the notion that one has a choice to believe in them. If wishes were but true. People have the right to believe in what they want. Sure. But they don’t have the right to advocate for positions without science and evidence from an expert perch. Let me repeat, there are correct and incorrect answers. Context may make these more complex, but nonetheless, we should not mistake the bad as someone’s equally valid position when the evidence clearly negates it. Equivalence is a dangerous hope we should avoid sometimes.

Let them Do It

If you want your participants to learn a new skill, improve on a current skill, or apply some new knowledge, make them do it! Avoid activities that simply get participants to talk about doing the tasks (unless you make them practice afterwards). Avoid lectures where learners listen to someone talking about the tasks (unless you make them do it afterwards). Learners need to practice, receive evaluative feedback, iteratively improve on what they were doing by practicing some more, and receive still more feedback. Or, you could just toss the money down the garbage chute.