Everyone has a different learning style..some people are auditory (learn by hearing), some are visual(learn by seeing) and some are kinaesthetic (learn by doing). When a person teaches others he will use the same method to teach as the method by which he learns. So a trainer who is a visual learner himself will tend to teach by using visual displays.
Now, during a training session, it is very useful to understand the learning style of the trainees so that the trainer can cater to them accordingly. A good way to understand a particular trainee's learning style is to ask a few questions at the beginning of the class, when each trainee introduces himself. Asking a trainee about his hobbies is a good way to get insight into his learning style.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Is learning fun ?
Learning is a process of change by which new skills or knowledge is acquired. Any change is stressful..it involves some pain. Unless a person goes through this stress, change cannot be created in his/her mind. And this stress is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as it is within limits. This kind of positive stress is known as eustress - as opposed to distress.
Should a trainer try to project the training class as a "fun" activity ? I believe not. A trainer should definitely not scare trainees by making the subject sound very difficult. At the same time, the trainees should get the message that they are not in the class for fun. Learning involves work and the associated stress. There is no running away from this. Trainees should be mentally prepared to accept this, and trainers should not shy away from pushing trainees so that they can achieve the learning outcomes.
Should a trainer try to project the training class as a "fun" activity ? I believe not. A trainer should definitely not scare trainees by making the subject sound very difficult. At the same time, the trainees should get the message that they are not in the class for fun. Learning involves work and the associated stress. There is no running away from this. Trainees should be mentally prepared to accept this, and trainers should not shy away from pushing trainees so that they can achieve the learning outcomes.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
How close is the result owner to the trainer ?
A few thoughts on different scenarios in training management and organization…
Simple, ideal case: Results owner = Trainer
When the trainer is directly the person who is responsible for the results expected out of training, it is the best possible scenario. The trainer knows exactly what skills are required of the trainee by the time the training is completed. So the training is squarely addressed towards transferring the skills to the trainee.
Example : This example is rather awkward but absolutely effective. Think of a parent trying to toilet-train a baby. The outcomes are clearly defined. Trainer knows precisely what skills are to be transferred to the trainee. Trainer is also the person who directly owns the results. If the training is not effective, the trainer is going to have a lot of cleanup to do ;-)
A slightly more complex case: Results owner is one layer away from trainer.
In this case, the results owner sends the trainee to a trainer and explains the expectations to the trainer. The trainer is tasked with transferring the required skills to the trainee, but is not directly impacted if the training is ineffective.
Example: A dog owner who takes his pet to a professional trainer for obedience training. The expectations are directly conveyed by the owner to the trainer. But if the training fails, the pain is for the owner and not for the trainer.
As complexity increases: Results owner is several layers away from trainer.
Example: A field manager sends his report (say a field engineer) for an internal training course within the same company. The trainer has developed the curriculum based on what the product design team told him. The field manager thinks the trainee is going to be fully competent to address field issues after the training. The trainee has some idea of what skills the training is going to offer, but not a very precise idea. The trainer has some idea what skills will help the trainee in his job after he completes the training. The training need from the field is not squarely addressed. This scenario is common as the organization’s size increases. To make the training very relevant and effective, the trainer, the product design group, the potential trainee, the trainee’s manager should all be completely aligned.
Simple, ideal case: Results owner = Trainer
When the trainer is directly the person who is responsible for the results expected out of training, it is the best possible scenario. The trainer knows exactly what skills are required of the trainee by the time the training is completed. So the training is squarely addressed towards transferring the skills to the trainee.
Example : This example is rather awkward but absolutely effective. Think of a parent trying to toilet-train a baby. The outcomes are clearly defined. Trainer knows precisely what skills are to be transferred to the trainee. Trainer is also the person who directly owns the results. If the training is not effective, the trainer is going to have a lot of cleanup to do ;-)
A slightly more complex case: Results owner is one layer away from trainer.
In this case, the results owner sends the trainee to a trainer and explains the expectations to the trainer. The trainer is tasked with transferring the required skills to the trainee, but is not directly impacted if the training is ineffective.
Example: A dog owner who takes his pet to a professional trainer for obedience training. The expectations are directly conveyed by the owner to the trainer. But if the training fails, the pain is for the owner and not for the trainer.
As complexity increases: Results owner is several layers away from trainer.
Example: A field manager sends his report (say a field engineer) for an internal training course within the same company. The trainer has developed the curriculum based on what the product design team told him. The field manager thinks the trainee is going to be fully competent to address field issues after the training. The trainee has some idea of what skills the training is going to offer, but not a very precise idea. The trainer has some idea what skills will help the trainee in his job after he completes the training. The training need from the field is not squarely addressed. This scenario is common as the organization’s size increases. To make the training very relevant and effective, the trainer, the product design group, the potential trainee, the trainee’s manager should all be completely aligned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)