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.
This article is a compilation of several Linked In posts on an important topic.
The Top Six Silly Traps To Avoid When Facilitating a Training Workshop
We trainers and facilitators do lots of good things... and we also do lots of dumb things. Hopefully the dumb things are relatively harmless and don't overly affect the desired learning outcomes. Below are six silly activities, behaviors, or tools that have been mired in our traditional approach to learning, but have ultimately no pedagogical value-- as least in their traditionally delivered state. As always, your mileage may vary.
Introductions
There are no more time consuming and mood killing activities a facilitator can run than the old-fashioned “go around the room and say a few things about yourself” exercise. Or, any of its alternatives. Talk about mind-numbing, monotonous death in the room... before you even start. First, often folks already know each other. If they don’t, the least effective way to introduce people is to have them take turns giving their names and positions. I have yet to meet a participant who pays any attention before they give their own intro or a participant who isn’t bored silly as others share theirs. Not to mention, if you have a large group… what a time killer! If participants don’t know each other, I assume they will meet and greet throughout the day as we do activities. For my sake, I take the time to meet them in the moments before the session begins and I learn who they are, like the participants, as the day progresses. Unless the goal of the training is to know everyone’s name and where they work (insert other key personal facts), I prefer to keep the program focused on the learning outcomes. And more to the point, I prefer that networking and social interactions are more meaningful and substantive.
Icebreakers
Speaking of meaning and substance-- please kill the icebreaker! Icebreakers are activities conducted at the beginning of a session to warm up the crowd. To get them energized, playful, and trained to engage. They are, as traditionally delivered, all too often decontextualized from the purpose of the program. They are also often silly, demeaning, and embarrassing exercises that some satanic designer developed to torture adults to probably make the rest of the day more palatable. Rather, Thiagi and I prefer to use the subtly different opener. An opener is also an introductory activity, but it is one that is relevant to the program topic. It may introduce the concept(s) of the course. Or, it may ask participants to share their perspectives about the topic and its relationship to their own work. Or, it may test what they currently know or can do as a needs assessment. Or, many other purposes. The key is it isn't frivolous. It isn't offset from the rest of the program. It isn't fun simply for fun's sake. I know... I could simply argue for meaningful icebreakers. But I think the term opener is a bit more of a reminder that activities should always be associated to the instructional purpose. And finally, openers still have the added benefit of training participants to engage, they certainly can still be playful, and energizing. But... they are also meaningful!
Content as Learning
With all the readily available research and pervasive information out there on the ineffectiveness of content absent context and application, I am still shocked how many trainers still default to the useless approach of "data-dumping" via lecture, text, video, 8,000,000,000 PowerPoint slides as a book, etc. We know most participants cannot retain information they experience without some form of contextualization, application, and practice (unless you are merely sharing a model or concept-- but then what do you do with it?). We know activities drive retention and allow for practice/feedback loops. We know the person who does the most talking learns the most, yet, for many trainers, for many stakeholders, if someone doesn’t explicitly stand up in the front of the room yapping and spewing as many words as possible at a passive audience, or some designer hasn't created hours of video content, they feel nothing was accomplished. Don't get me wrong, lectures, books, videos, and podcasts rock!!!! But, in the context of learning, they are the content and they need to be married to a supportive, wrap-around activity. Training is not a performance to be listened to or viewed. It is a two-way street of interactive moments.
The Overuse and Misapplication of PowerPoint
Often connected to lectures, the cliché, “death by PowerPoint” certainly has quite a bit of truth to it. Look... I love PowerPoints... especially now that Microsoft created the Designer Wizard. Now even my slides look cool! But, even us activity-oriented trainers still rely too much on slides and visuals. When I am activity focused, I don’t need PowerPoints except as directions for the said activity. My last workshop in China was a day-long program on how to innovate. There were 24 managers and executives in the room. No slides were shown and the participants at the end of the day solved a huge business issue they faced using the innovation process we shared with them (a job-aid with an activity to learn the process). I am not saying we don't disseminate content. If I deliver a lecture, I will use slides that adhere to good presentation principles. Few bullets, limited graphics unless the graphic supports DIRECTLY my point, and as a way of targeting attention to key, memorable information (see the objectives section below about targeted objectives). Slides are a tool! And tools should be used effectively. PPTs are not books. They are not art. They are not (or should not be) the primary source for content dissemination. Partner them. Partner them with that lecture, a screen flow, or use them to create images for other media.
Detailed Agendas
I get in trouble with this one a lot. Our HR stakeholders and sometimes the executives want to know exactly what will happen, when it will happen, and how it will happen. Thiagi often teases that he will insert, "Spontaneous joke at 10:32 AM." The truth is, I have no idea what will happen. I know I will get them to a final objective, but the journey will be unique depending on the folks in the room and the variable ways they respond to both the content and the activities. No activity is predictable time-wise beyond an educated guess, which requires flexibility. But, often, clients want the details of the journey rather than a commitment to the end goal. I understand this need for control, but a detailed agenda for an activity-based, and learner-focused program, is a forecast waiting to be ignored and changed. I spend a lot of time selling the outcome, and selling a “trust the process” approach. I manage expectations that we will not adhere to an agenda, or that the experiences will be the same group to group. I manage that we will hit our goal. And when still required, I offer the following:
Open
Activity
Another Activity
Break
Activity
Another Activity
Close
Sharing Learning Objectives at The Beginning Of a Course
Learning objectives are indeed very important. I am not claiming they aren’t. Just not delivered generically or at the beginning of a program. And, I will also claim that they are for the instructional designer and the trainer. They are not, based on research by Ernest Rothkoph and others, necessarily as effective when given to participants. He showed that (assuming a decent instructional design) when objectives were not given at the beginning of a session, participants almost equally met the stated (for the designer) and unstated goals. In other words, they learned what was essential and much more. But, when they were presented up front, learners did indeed learn the objectives, but didn’t learn anything else not espoused. In fact, research summarized wonderfully by Dr. Will Thalheimer shows how traditional learning objectives can actually even undermine learner application and retention unless reformulated as targeted objectives. A targeted objective is either a statement or an activity that draws attention to specifically what the learner should learn either immediately before, during, or immediately after an instructional moment. In other words, it is timely and tells the learner what he or she should remember and pay attention to right then. In fact, these targeted objectives are not even recognizable as we have come to perceive Bloom-like learning objectives. It is more useful to focus on what we want learners to do differently, and design activities and experiences that get people to that goal. Target their attention to what you want them to remember appropriately. No need to explicitly state them at the beginning of the program.