In a message dated 97-10-15 12:41:46 EDT,
rbacal@escape.ca writes:
<<
> An example of this for me is the silly model/theory of 'active listening'
> that is part of many training programs. People are trained to use some
> variation of reflective skills and sent back into a chaotic organization
> only to be sunk because what primarily is a Rogerian Theraputic
> model/theory isn't appropriate in the worlds of work and everyday
> relationships. Relationships, work or social, are about give and take, not
> intensive one way listening. Seldom do trainee-participants get to explore
> their inner sense that 'active listening' can't work.
I agree...it's absurd...and it is a result of generally incompetent
trainers, not a problem with training. Shall we talk about the old
management professor who teaches traditional command and control
models to managers, in the guise of education, where EXACTLY the same
conditions apply (as you have described above)?
>
> So, I would bet, but I couldn't prove, that if we examined most university
> instruction in the HR "skills" areas or most management/employee training
> in areas like interpersonal skills, w
>>
I'm fascinated by the fact that this thread seems to be more about trainer
bashing than anything else.
Note the "silly active listening course". Why is is silly? Is it silly
because the content is invalid? Who chose the content? Often it is not the
trainer. What kind of needs assessment was done to determine the content?
Has the training manager made sure that the trainer has sufficient life
experience to help participants make meaningful application to the job?
In an ideal world those involved make sure that a complete and thorough needs
assessment is done, that performance gaps are identified, that there is
agreement reached among all stakeholders as to the reasons for the gaps.
Some of the reasons may have a training intervention attached. Others may
not. Again, there is agreement reached, support obtained. Then (in an ideal
world) we write performance objectives and/or terminal objectives and/or
enabling objectives. Then comes the training materials. After the design
there's delivery and follow-up.
This is all in an ideal world. How much time to we spend in teaching OR
training preparing people for the fact that there is no ideal world...and the
intervention - training or other - will hardly ever run to plan?
And perhaps the Instructional Systems Design Model is as outdated as Taylor's
theory of management. For example, where in the model do we examine how
adults learn? Do we, in classroom teaching, even take into account differing
learning styles?
Many on this list will recognize such concepts as "brain-based learning",
accelerated learning, multiple intelligences, left-brain, right brain.
However, can we articulate them? Do we apply the concepts to our
instrructional designs as either educators or trainers? Do we even know how?
Do we care?
How many teachers and trainers do we have in classrooms who have the
attitude, "My job is to teach the content. Your job is to pass the course."
Is our job, either as educators or trainers, to deliver content or to
develop competency?
For myself, whether in teaching a graduate course or "just" a training
program, I believe that if my participants haven't caught it, I haven't
taught it. I believe in creating, as much as possible, a partnership
between all parties who can influence the outcome and application. In the
academic setting it may just be the teacher and student (or depending on the
age the student's parent).
In the "real world" it more often includes the trainer, the participant, and
the participant's manager. Why? Because the participant's manager has a
great deal of influence on the participant in terms of preparing that person
for the class, and supporting the application of the content back on the job.
How many managers really prepare people to go to a training program? In my
experience, very few. How many managers were ever prepared for a class
themselves? Even fewer. Isn't it possible that managers have a blind spot
here, or haven'd received the trainign or coaching needed to make a
difference.
In the real world things are often much more complex. Let's think things
through before we call any content "silly" or too quickly identify the one
person responsible for training (or education for that matter) failing.