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.
Busting other Myths
A trainer asked why I keep saying that training should not be fun. I replied, training can be fun, but the goal is not to entertain. It is to engage. He said that he was held accountable for making his training enjoyable for participants. I asked whether he was held accountable for making his training effective? He said participants always rated his training highly effective on the evaluations. I have spent quite a bit of time railing against smiley sheets and the concept of fun. Sorry. Time to do so again. Fun is just one way to engage learning. And, fun in the classroom has even been shown to have diminishing returns if the focus is too much on it. The point is to have effective training where training objectives are met and demonstrated later on the job. Learner engagement (which may be fun) has been identified as important to this process. Engagement is a method to reach that result. Smiley sheets where participants self-rate effectiveness is a waste of time. Most participants are not qualified to rate course efficacy. They can rate if they liked the trainer, the content, and the process. But, not whether it worked. There are many misconceptions that are so prevalent. It is our job to continue to myth bust!
Awareness
Lately there is a movement for making training less about skill development and more about increasing participant awareness of specific issues. In other words, I am seeing more and more a drive to turn training into a communication outlet. This can easily become a very expensive and ineffective communication tool. Stakeholders are losing sight of the goal... skill development. I recently was asked to develop a two-hour program on behavioral interviewing skills (note the word “skills” in that request). The prospective client would provide the content, and I was to write a script. Perhaps I could add an activity? I asked what the desired outcome should be? They should become more “aware” of. The stakeholder said she had videos that participants could watch to develop the skills. I was merely “to inform.” Another client wanted an hour presentation on Bias. The goal was to make people aware of their biases and mitigate them. These are complex training concepts. And certainly 60-90 minutes will not close skill gaps in most cases. Spending money on “awareness” is problematic. What do you measurably get from it? Awareness often lacks the prescription and the practice and feedback required to make a return possible.
Design Principles
Over the years, Thiagi has shared several of his design principles. I have written about several of them: Build the airplane while flying it. Let the inmates run the asylum. Some others include: (1) Do all procedural steps concurrently and recursively. (2) Open minds with open questions. (3) Use templates for everything. (4) Blend everything. (5) Keep on tweaking and adding to the kernel. (6) Use creative techniques and require creative responses. (7) Use activities before, during, and after your training— but at no other times. (8) Focus on activities and not on content.
I am sure there are others I have forgotten. These principles guide all my instructional designs, all my trainings, and all my consulting interactions. And they also work with kids, spouses, and pets.