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.
Snake Oil
Research has debunked (or at least put into severe question) several tools we trainers have used or sold. Yet, many still hock them and use them in their classrooms. Whether these are disposition tools like DiSC, social styles, MBTI, the 70-20-10 rule, learning styles, or others. Why do trainers and designers insist on still using them? More importantly, why do our clients still request we use them? What I find most disturbing is the apathy to the research. If I taught something that was specious at best, I would feel embarrassed. There is no reason for those who educate to employ faulty content. It is irresponsible. Sure, we all make mistakes. We get suckered into ascribing to these pretty and cool looking things. But, at the end of the day, we should avoid the temptation, read a little bit about the controversy, and make a decision based on research results and not good marketing. Total disclosure: I have sold and taught all of these things. I was either ignorant or greedy— having made the case to the client and going with it nonetheless. With the Internet making knowledge readily available, we have no excuse peddling snake oil.
Which Comes First?
Which should come first: the type of delivery platform (eLearning, instructor-led training, or MOOC) or the instructional design that meets your desired learning outcomes. Hopefully the obvious answer was the design. Yet, so many of my colleagues, clients, and prospective clients decide first they want eLearning, or TedX presentations (not even training!), and then they design around this platform. When done this way, the design team has already diminished the potential effects of the program by putting logistic constraints. Also, many delivery formats impose time limits by their very nature rather than the design determining the required time for learning. Sometimes, I hear, “We do blended.” But this has also become simply another platform-first mindset. The best designs start with the end in mind. What do you want people to do differently as a result of your training? Now, what do we need to do to get them there? Later, we can discuss the logistics of the platform. The medium should be decided by the structure and requirements of the design. Not the other way around.
Adding Value
Matt-bw.JPGDo you add value as a trainer? Before you answer, let’s define a trainer as someone who facilitates activities, debriefs the activities as appropriate, and manages the room dynamics. The trainer will have others fill different roles. For example, an SME (Subject Matter Expert) to provide content as needed. Given that definition, could a monkey do what we do? If we assume the monkey can post a slide or two with activity directions, blow a whistle to move the activity along, share debrief questions, point and nod as participants answer, then a monkey is quite competent to be a trainer. Don’t get mad at me. I am just kidding. There are so many intangible factors we trainers bring to the classroom. We constantly assess how participants are doing and modify activities on the fly as needed. We ask penetrating questions extemporaneously as dynamics in the room shift. We push some, leave others alone, and adjust the interpersonal dynamics as information becomes known. Monkeys can’t do these things. We trainers are not commodities that can easily be replaced. We are ourselves, highly trained professionals who need to be a stronger voice in our industry. We need to advocate for high-end quality designs and effective delivery mechanisms.