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.
Evaluating Training
If I asked you to evaluate your accountant, I am guessing you would first rate that you got a decent return and didn’t get audited. Second, you might consider the service received from the accountant. Third, maybe the cost. Fourth, wait time.
With training, evaluation is less clear and more complex. It is hard to determine if the taxes were filed accurately and on time at the end of a training class. The cost of training is way more expensive than filing a tax return. Sometimes learning is tough and not so fun, so we rank fun over learning. But, in the end, the concept of efficacy, service, price, and time seem to work for training as much as they do for rating your accountant. Too often, we spend no time considering these different measures against our performance. We use smile sheets and other nonsense tools to mask over the fact we have no idea if what we just delivered was effective. Let’s agree that training efficacy is an essential measure given the costs. The training industry is vast and neglects demonstrating its objective value. No other industry accepts this vagueness in evaluating its performance.
The Best Game
I often get asked what is the best game to use. Or what is my favorite game?
This is the wrong question. Here is the right question: Given a specific objective and a particular set of logistics, what game might I use and why?
We all have favorites. Favorite foods and favorite children. Favorite games. That’s both natural and a good way for us to conceptualize groups of activities we might use. But, as designers and trainers, we should defend against the impulse to use what we love, and focus first, on what outcomes we want. It should be the outcome first and logistics (number of people, type of space, and time) second that determine what we do. Once those two factors are covered, then and only then can our own personal preferences come into play.
I like Legos
I also like card games, board games, and simulation games. But, unless I am playing these games at home for fun, I always focus on how the game meets my learning objectives. Too often, I see trainers using cool activities or tech devices (like hand-held polling) for no clear pedagogical reason. The connection between an activity and the learning outcome is specious, at best. I have been guilty of this bias. Most of us have been. But, as more and more of us drink buy into the principles of activities-based training, we have to be clear on why we use them. Don’t play with Legos just because they are fun and have different colors. Use them because they provide the best platform for meeting a training objective. If they are not the best option, use something that is. Design for optimum effect. Design for appropriate usage. Design for results.