Note to Trainers: You can't "deliver" learning!

If I had a dollar for every time I've heard someone talk about "delivering" a training, I'd be.....well, let's just say that I could buy a lot of pizza!

As in any field, language matters, and enthusiasts in dialogue education circles are no exception. We can have long debates over the relative merits of "teacher-centred vs. learner-centred vs. learning-centred", never quite agree with each other, but walk away richer for having had a respectful dialogue. 

But when it comes to "delivering training", I draw the line. "Delivering" is a term that we use for: 

• flowers (good),  
• pizza (mmmm!)
• books from Amazon or Chapters (convenient, if bad for independent bookstores)
• parcels by UPS (handy, but I'm not sure about all that brown in one place...)
• ordinance (Military Orewellian newspeak for "bombs")

But good or bad, using the term "delivery" to describe training or teaching really bugs me for 4 reasons:

1. "Deliver" implies that the learners are passive.

Sure they might have dialed a 1-800 number or surfed to a website, and chosen their toppings, but then all they have to do is sit there with their mouth open and receive the new knowledge and skills that we impart. Delivery, to me, implies passivity: they have no agency, they don't need to make decisions and we certainly don't expect them to engage in any critical reflection on the learning (e.g. What is the significance of anchovies in your community?).

The delivery mindset reflects the old paradigm in which because the authority figure says something, it must be true. Because I taught it, you must have received, understood and accepted it. But it has never worked that way. Sure students may have dutifully "absorbed" what the teacher said and regurgitated back on the exam, but if it stuck more than three days after the end of term, it was probably because they made some meaning of it because they wanted to. Learning is an act of the will; I cannot "learn" anyone; it is up to them to be actively involved in the process. 

In reality, learners ARE the active Subjects (Decision makers) of their own learning. They make thousands of almost unconscious decisions in every learning situation to "triage" the barrage of information that is firing at them by criteria like: how does that make me feel? what is useful here? what new insights does that provide me? how is the teacher acting towards me? what of this resonates with what I've heard before? what sounds or looks preposterous? 

Like or not, learners are always engaging in this "internal" dialogue whenever they are in a class or workshop or reading a book. (In fact, you're doing it right now as you read this: "Hey, good point, Dwayne! No! That's a load of ....!).  So why not celebrate their agency and make it an explicit part of their learning process? 

2. "Deliver" commodifies the learning as a product

Just like a book that can be sent in the mail, "delivering" learning suggests that the new Knowledge, Skills or Attitudes is a pre-fabricated, complete, generic package of facts, images and PowerPoint slides that you can just pull off the shelf and send to someone. No customization is required; just sign here and take it with lots of water. 

But in my experience, the best learning occurs in groups -- whether online or in person -- where people can wrestle with a topic, debate with one another and engage in some sort of hands-on interaction with the content that engages all their senses. This kind of dynamic learning is never the same no matter how often you teach it because it draws on the life experiences, energy and expertise of the learners. 

3. "Deliver" diminishes your role as the teacher or trainer

If all you have to do as a teacher or trainer is "deliver" a course, you might as well hire any robot to stand there, click through the PowerPoint slides and mumble the words out loud. 

But training and teaching can be -- should be -- so much more than that. As a learning facilitator, I see my role as providing a safe yet flexible structure of time, space and tasks in which learners can bring out their voices, actively engage in the process and create something new. But this requires extensive preparation, building relationships and being responsive throughout the event. It takes far more work than pressing "next slide". 

And in most cases, I'm not the only "expert" in the room. In fact, I see my role as being a co-learner who helps draw out the expertise, experience and energy of all the participants, while offering my own perspectives for their consideration. 

4. "Deliver" is only 1-part of the learning process

As Jane Vella and others have pointed out, conveying new knowledge, skills and attitudes works best when it is supported by other steps of the learning cycle. 

Anchor: Look backward to activate and affirm your learners' prior experience with the topic.
(e.g. With a partner, share an example of when your child has struggled with reading. We'll hear a sample. )

Add: Provide new information, or concepts or demonstrate a new skill
(e.g. Listen to this theory on how children read. What resonates with your experience?)

Apply: Invite them to use this new learning in a hands-on way
(e.g. In groups of 4, analyze this case study of a child who is learning to read. What can she, her teacher and her parents do better in light of the theory we reviewed?)

Away: Look forward and ask them to name how this new learning will be significant or challenging to apply and what supports they may need.
(e.g.  What did you learn today that will help you work with your child to improve her / his reading? What new questions do you want to explore?

(See Jane's book, Taking Learning to Task for more details). Of course, you don't need to follow this template rigidly, and there are other experiential learning cycles that can work equally as well. But the main point here is that conveying data is only a small (but important) step of the process. We also need to help the learners connect that new information to their lives -- past, present and future.

To Sum Up: 

Our challenge as teachers, trainers and facilitators of learning is to move from delivery....

 to Engagement!

The Top 10 Ways to Kill Dialogue in a Workshop

As practitioners of Dialogue Education, we know that adults learn best through dialogue. As such, we aim provide many opportunities to engage with the content and each other, and to make meaning of it through conversation and meaningful learning tasks.

Sadly, this is not always the case in many training situations.

But in the spririt of Depreciative Inquiry (TM), I firmly believe that there is a lot that we can learn from our mistakes and the Worst Practices that we've all experienced. So, in the spririt of David Letterman's Top Ten List, here are....

<drum roll, please>

The Top 10 Ways to Kill Dialogue in a Workshop....

1. Ask, “Are there any questions?” in a tone that suggests that they didn’t get it if they still have questions. Better yet, say, “Well, if there are no questions, then we can move on..”

2. Provide ambiguous directions for small group work so that people get really frustrated. Then, don't debrief their small group conversations together so that they realize that what they say in the groups really isn't important to you.

3. Promise to finish early if they don’t ask too many questions.

4. Ask closed and/or rhetorical questions, preferably obvious ones (e.g. What are the colours in a traffic light?), but failing that obscure impossible questions. "Can anyone tell me why organizations are like blue cheese....?". Keep fishing the right answer until someone provides it out of embarrassment or just to end the agony....

5. Assign 5 complex discussion questions to small groups of 5 people. Give them 10 minutes to discuss the questions and create an interpretive dance that highlights their key insights. (do the math…).

6. Tell the group that they have 20 minutes for a small group learning task and then cut it back to 10 minutes once you realize that you need to make up the time. Interrupt them if possible in mid-conversation by saying, "Folks, we REALLY need to move on to finish my agenda."

7. React judgementally, sarcastically and/or confrontationally to any wrong answers using verbal retorts and/or body language. Bonus points for rolled eyes, guffaws, or comments like, "I can see why you might think that, but you're wrong...."

8. Start off by saying, “I bet that you don’t know the answer to this question….”

9. Speak for a long time about something not relevant to the course (e.g. your vacation, the problem you had finding parking, the last group you worked with who were a pain in the butt...) and then make up the time by skipping the “optional” group exercises.

10. Stick fastidiously to your prepared PowerPoint slides and flash through them all to you can “cover the content” in the remaining time. End quickly with a brief mention of the questions in #1 while closing your laptop and turning off the projector. Grab you coat if they really don't get it.

The sad thing is that I've seen facilitators do all of these things. No wonder people are cynical about workshops.

Thankfully, there is a better way....

Your turn:

If you're not too depressed, please add your top tips for killing dialogue in the comments box below.

Is It Time to Renovate Your Training Design?

"Nice house,", my mother said, walking into our new house for the first time. "But the kitchen door's in the wrong place". 

She immediately took out a pencil and paper and started sketching out a better layout: "move the back deck door here in line with the front hallway, change the position of the stove, the sink goes here...."

She was right, of course -- my mom's always right. It is an older house built circa 1920, and it has its quirks. In this case, the back door was not aligned with the hallway, meaning that we've always had to walk through the eating and cooking area.

But in the end, it took us nearly seven years to save up the funds, find the time and hire the right people before we finally started this work recently. 

Even as I write this post, the carpenters are downstairs now, peeling back the old linoleum, putting in a new subfloor, stripping down the drywall to the studs and outside wall. There's dust and insulation everywhere, and the clatter of this keyboard is interrupted with the wrrrr....rreeeeenn...buzzzzz...crack! of men at work (and no, not the 80s Australian band). 

But once it's done, it will be great. Just like my mother said. 

* * *

I've been working recently with some colleagues to update their workshop design. It's a great course, with excellent content, clear Achievement-Based Objectives, and many engaging learning tasks.  

But having taught it many times, many of the faciltators feel like it needs some changes and updates.

So a few weeks ago, six of us formed a design team to undertake what one member called"some renovations". We don't need to tear it down and start over again, he explained. The design is structurally sound, but it would benefit from some remodelling here, an addition there, maybe punching out that learning task to lighten it up, maybe a lick of colour and new graphics there to freshen it up....

We've been working as a team in person and online for a few weeks and I'm glad to say that we're making great progress. But it is hard work. Once you take apart something as complex as a learning design, you find suprises and vestigial parts ("Why do the previous owner do this that way? What were they thinking when they chose that wallpaper!!"). Parts that worked well previously suddenly don't fit anymore, and you have to build an entire new task....

It has been a fun process and a chance to work with some great designers. I can't wait until the post-reno "reveal" episode! 

* * *

I also enjoy doing these kinds of design reviews and renovations for my clients.

I start by going back to the blueprints and mapping out all the design parameters on one page. Then I check for congruence between the steps.

• Which design parameters are a given? Which can we change? 
• What would happen if we cut this back to a 1-day workshop? 
• Or could we do this online instead? 
• Is this the right Content for these participants? 
• Are the ABOs aligned with the desired Transfer and Impact objectives? 
• Can this activity go beyond participation for its own sake to deepen the learning? 

Next, I like to analyze it to see how the design stands up to the priniciples and practices of good adult learning, as articulated in a dialogue education approach. How does this design demonstrate Respect for the learner's life experience, expertise, emotions and opinions? How might we retrofit this to provide more opportunities for Praxis? Are the learning tasks following a particular learning cycle? 

Then, it's time for the wrecking ball! Well, okay usually a crow bar and a hammer is sufficient to do the job. But it is often necessary to do a bit of tearing down to create space for the new design.

Much work ensues, much coffee is consumed, many post-its notes go up on the wall, restorative naps are taken, bikes are ridden, drafts are drafted.....

But when the dust settles.....voila! A brand-spanking-new interactive and rigorous, accountable and engaging design emerges. 

Can I Help You Renovate?

Could your own training design or webinar could use a bit of fixing up? Is it time to tear down that wood panelling and rip up that shag carpeting? Would you like a bit more meaningful interaction in your design? Are you unhappy with what the learners remember and apply afterwards? 

If so, drop me a line. I'd be happy to take a look at your design and provide a short example of what it could look like for free.

Then, if you like what I've done, I'll send you a quote for redesigning the rest.

But don't worry, unlike an electrician, I won't give you a shocking estimate! 

Cheers, dh

No Fishing, Please!

Foresaking Facipulation
& Faux Inductive Learning

“Training, huh?” the GO bus driver asked me. “Have you read….” and then he proceeded to tell me about a book he was reading on management theory and then asked, "Do you know what the first thing that disappears when a relationship goes bad? he asked. 

"Uh, no.", I replied, curiously. "What?"

"Guess", he said, glancing up into his rear view mirror smiling. 

"Um, I dunno,....Trust?"

"Nope. Guess again." 

"Uh....communication?"

"Nope, way off!" he said, clearly enjoying this game. "I'll give you a hint: It's a 7-letter word....."

I counted off the letters on my fingers: H-A-P-P-I-N-E-S-S? Nope, too many letters. A-F-F-E-C-T-I-O-N? No, that's 9 too..... E-M-P-A-T-H-Y? Seven!

"Empathy," I said proudly. 

"Nope! Guess again...."

"Sigh...." This line of questioning ran on for five more kilometres of stop and go traffic. But by the time he "revealed" the right answer***, I was so annoyed that I really didn't care anymore..... 

Beware of Fishing

Guessing games have a long and storied history that dates back to Rumpelstiltskin and the Riddle of the Sphinx. But when I come across them in training workshops, I wonder if they are really the best way to teach. 

For example, I was attending a brownbag lunch where the facilitator asked us to call out why participation was important in community development planning processes.

“Great,” I thought. “An Anchor task where he demonstrates Respect for our previous experience and knowledge as adult learners by asking us what we think”.

We dutifully named off our reasons: ownership, accuracy, efficiency, justice, power relations....etc.

"Thanks", he said, flipping to the next slide, "But here's what I really wanted you to say..." 

Doh! You could feel the energy hissing out of the room.

This is what I’d call a “faux inductive” exercise in which the trainer is kind of just pretending to elicit your ideas in order to get you to say what he wants, making us feel like a bunch of ventriloquists dummies.

Or worse yet, the point of the fishing expedition is to get you to name the wrong answers so he can then “reveal” the surprise “right” answer, making us all just feel, well, ….dumb.

I often see this in facilitators’ guides – those top secret manuals that only trainers ever get to see!”: “Ask the audience what they think about this. Get them to say things like….X, Y, Z….”

“Get them to say?” – That’s “facipulation” (Noteboom 2004) at its worse.

Perhaps the designers see this as a way of encouraging “audience participation” in what is otherwise a one-way presentation. But to my mind, fishing for the right answer just reinforces the power dynamics of the expert-learner relationship (especially when the learners aren't able to say the “right” word). And fishing for the right answer also eats up a lot of time.

A Better Way

To avoid fishing, remember Jane Vella’s axiom of “Don’t ask what you can tell; tell in dialogue”. Or in other words, don’t ask a question if you already know the answer.

Instead just state some of the key ideas up front and then invite them to actively reflect on these ideas in light of their experience.  

For example, if I was teaching a parenting class, I would forego the fishing expedition in favour of “telling in dialogue” as follows:

A. With a partner, review these 10 tips for helping your child manage conflict and:

• Note any tips that require clarification
• Put a checkmark beside any tips that you’re tried that work
• Cross out any ideas you’ve tried that don’t work
• Underline any new ideas that you’d like to try, 
• Add any additional tips that you think should be there.

 We’ll hear some highlights of your reflections in the large group after 5 minutes.

 Of course, you may want to just choose 1-2 or those instructions, but look how this learning task shifts the focus away: 

• from my Socratic-fisher's drone to the participants' voices engaged in actively learning through dialogue
• from just transferring knowledge to providing opportunities for the learners to take the content and run with it: to delve deeper down through Bloom’s deeper levels of learning to “comprehension”, “analysis”, "evaluation" and “synthesis”.

Imagine the difference it might make for the learners and for learning. 

Pax, dh

***Can you guess the answer to the bus driver’s question, “What is the first thing that disappears when a working relationship goes bad”? Put your answer in the text box below and I’ll make a $25 donation to the Living Oceans Society in your name when I receive the first right answer! Save the fish! Stop fishing! 

On Speaking More Slowly: A Resolution

Today our local CBC radio morning show ran an interesting story on how people these days are speaking more quickly.

The reporter interviewed a scientist who had clocked the average speed of spoken words rising from 130 words a per minute to something like 150 in the past decade. Worse yet, he found speeds as high as 180 for teachers or even 200 for newscasters. He blamed part of this on time pressures, but part of it is just a style that we emulate to make us sound smarter.  

But as your verbal velocity increases, he argues, the comprehension of many listeners declines -- particularly with children and the elderly, but even people north of middle age. This is partly because speakers who are trying to break the speed limit tend to slurduhwords or cut off the endi-----. But is also because the oral processing speed of our brains varies at different stages of our lives. 

So when your pre-schooler does not seem to be listening to what you're saying -- "Isaacputyourshoeson! IssacIsaidputyourshoeson!" -- perhaps it is because you're saying it too quickly for them to understand.

(Then again, it just might be becuase he finds his LEGO blocks far more interesting than his shoes...). 

Set Your Cruise Control at 130

Instead, the researcher recommended trying to speak at around 130 words a minute. He modelled this during the interview; it was noticeably slower than the reporter, but I must say he was very clear. 

(To see what 130 words a minute sounds like, he recommended typing out that many words on a page and then read it aloud, pacing yourself to stretch it out to a full 60 seconds. Its slower than you think).  

"Uuuuuhhh oooohhhhh", I said, making a conscious effort to drag out the syllables despite the fact that I was talking to myself. "I'm in trooooouuuuble". 

You see, I come from a long line of mealy mouth, marble-garbled, mumblers (try saying that quickly!). My dad mumbles and so do my siblings.  Guests to our family home even suggested that we Hodgson's had our own language. Worse yet, I also tend to speak quickly, particularly when I'm in the midst of a caffeine-fuelled brainstorm and the ideas are popping out faster than my poor lips and tongue can keep up.

This is a bad trait to have as a facilitator, and occasionally workshop participants have told me that I was speaking too quickly or that they had difficulty hearing me.  

A Resolution

So, here's an early New Year's resolution:  In my phone conversations, in the workshops that I facilitate, in meetings, and especially when speaking with my kids and my older parents, I, Dwayne Hodgson, of the Mealy-Mouth, Marble-Garbled, Mumbling Hodgson's, hereby resolve to try to speak more slowly and clearly. 

There.

That's.....done. 

Have.... a.....greeaaat.....daaayy!