Week6-ExpertsSpeak

Our virtual panel is back. Let’s see what ideas they have for you on implementation. When I started teaching, I thought “presentation” and “facilitation” were pretty much the same thing – teaching. But I took a course that really opened my eyes, and now I lean strongly toward the facilitation model. What’s the difference? In very simple terms, presentation means eyes are on me; I’m on stage, giving information. Facilitation, which literally means to make it easy for people to learn, puts the student in the spotlight. My job is to create interesting activities or problems for my students to “wrestle” with, then to set up the activity in class, support them while they do it, and debrief it afterwards. Those steps are key – you can’t just throw a handout at them, sit down at your desk to grade yesterday’s homework, and collect some written document at the end. The two really great things that have come out of my change to the facilitative style are: first, my students love it and become so engaged! This is the very definition of active learning. And second, this style is actually so much easier and so much more fun for me! Instead of standing in the front of the room, droning on and on, I’m circulating around as my students “buzz,” checking on their progress, giving them advice, watching the light bulbs go on over their heads, and encouraging them. I get to know them individually, in those interactions, in ways that would never be possible if all I did were to call on them in front of the whole class. Now, a couple of cautions: In order to make this facilitation approach work in class, a lot of behind-the-scenes effort has to go into it; it’s not “easier” in terms of time you have to put in, just that much of the effort occurs before class. And second, even if you become a great facilitator, there will be still be times when you have to present material; don’t grab this approach – or any one approach, for that matter – and forget about everything else. Variety is not only the spice of life; it’s the spice of teaching. As a trained instructional designer, I want to think that once the analysis has been done, the design approved, and the materials developed, the success of the implementation should be a given. Alas, not always, and that’s why my team and I are committed to the piloting concept. Building in time and resources for a pilot program of any substantial initiative has paid off over and over again for us. We do both “alpha” and “beta” testing. Alpha testing includes bringing in other IDs or training staff who weren’t involved with the project and presenting it to them; then we make adjustments based on their feedback. Beta testing comes next, when we present to a small group of real learners and capture their feedback and ideas. In both cases, we usually ask for a written evaluation; plus, for our online courses, we usually do a “talk aloud” exercise. This means that we have the pilot testers sit with an ID and verbalize what they’re thinking – “It tells me to click on ‘Return’ but I don’t see that button… oh, there it is. That was confusing….” We get so much information from those sessions! I have to add that sometimes, there simply isn’t an opportunity to pilot a program this way. Either the timeframe to full rollout is just too tight or we can’t get a beta-test group together for one reason or another. In those cases, we just gather feedback from the real sessions we hold and use that like we would use beta-test feedback, to make improvements. Life just isn’t always neat and tidy, and neither is corporate training. I haven’t mentioned it before, but I actually have a foot in two camps here. Before I moved to my current position at the university, I worked for a number of years in industry. Although the way we executed it in the business world was different from what we do here in my department, training the trainers (or instructors) is one part of implementation that shouldn’t be overlooked. This is sometimes written as “TTT” or “T3.” After the materials are developed, but before the sessions can be presented, the instructors have to be brought in to get up to speed on the ID’s vision for implementation. In business, we used to have the ID teach the session to the prospective trainers while they took notes and asked questions. Here at the U, it’s more common for us professors to just get a facilitator’s guide and talk to one another if we have questions. Someone who’s taught the class before may step in as a coach, but it’s pretty informal. This is one thing I’d like to see our institution take a more active approach to, frankly, as some of our newer instructors can flounder a bit if they don’t ask for enough help. I think a more guided system for TTT, like we followed in business, would be better.
 * Experts Speak – Week 6 **
 * Fifth-grade Teacher Soraya **
 * Corporate Training Manager Cathy **
 * College Professor Jim  **