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.
Fun... Feh!
The goal of training is not fun! In fact, the goal of training is not even engagement. The goal of training is skill enhancement. We do this through a series of activities that are engaging. Engagement is a process we use to reach our objectives. But, more and more, I am running into trainers and designers who forget our objectives. Fun is not the goal. When we engage learners, we have seen great increases in retention and application after programs. When we engage learners, as Esther Kornexl puts it, they experience fun. Or, they experience some other emotion. Or, they experience deep reflection. But, fun is really just one possible outcome of engagement. If we trainers only target fun, we are limiting ourselves to only one type of engagement. We are not entertainers. We are educators. Let’s remember our goal. My partner Thiagi, talks about training sessions with hospice volunteers. In this sessions, fun would have been inappropriate. Through the simulations he conducted, there were lots of tears and emotions. These were the results of his engagement. He still hears from those participants about the impact that training had on them.
Critical Thinking
Recently, I was sitting with a colleague who professed the secret to effective training was for participants to have fun. For her, without fun, there is no learning. What bothered me was when I asked her why she was so convinced fun was the key, she gave me anecdotes and professed that fun was the basis for people wanting to engage. I asked for the evidence. I asked for the research references on this conclusion. Maybe there is. The more concerning point is that her confidence in her rightness is so powerful, and that she is an amazing facilitator, she can get large groups of people to follow her anywhere. Which makes it more dangerous when she can’t explain why she so strongly believes in a concept that could have extensive ramifications for those she teaches in train-the-trainer sessions. Confidence does not equal correctness. Nor does someone in an authoritative role professing a fact make the fact right absent evidence supporting it. Critical thinking is probably misnamed. But, I hope we, as an industry, can rediscover the value and practice of this vital competency.
Correlation and Causality
When using a model, process, or assessment in a workshop, how do we prove it works? For some, “it works” simply means we are able to stimulate conversation and awareness of a problem. For others, success is applying the tool in everyday life. Either way, there is often a misunderstanding between causality and correlation. Causality means the tool is the direct reason for performance improvement. Causality is very hard to identify. It requires clear distinctions among all the different variables that could possibly lead to change. Good testing and a comprehension of statistics is often required to determine causality. More often, we trainers mistake some connection between the tool and an outcome as actually one causing the other. But we are only seeing a link. This link is nothing more than a relationship. Correlations really require testing, as well, but we assume their presence. But correlation does not equal cause. Trainers should not state that a model, process, or assessment yields improvement until cause has been validated. Nor should we just claim that it works, and that is all we need to know to profess its effectiveness with participants.