It is a trainer’s nightmare: you prepare a participant-centered lesson chock full of effective learning activities and then realize you have misjudged the timing. This may be due to the fact that there are too few participants, so there is less time needed for debriefing or discussion. It may be due to the fact that the participants are able to complete the activities faster than you anticipated. Regardless of the reason, the planned training content has essentially been covered and yet there are still two hours left in the training day!

If you can’t simply let the participants leave early and you want to make the learning experience as rich and useful as possible, there is one surefire way to fill that training gap.

The solution is very simple and stems directly from the participant-centered nature of successful training: Give your participants an opportunity to discuss their challenges and it will become apparent what they still need to learn! The group and the facilitator can then pool their knowledge and experience to help each other out. The learning that occurs will be much more meaningful and effective because it is directly relevant to the participant’s needs.

For example, a recent lesson on the topic of motivation skills for managers was originally designed for a class of twenty-five participants. However, there were only twelve participants in the class, and they were a very perceptive bunch. As a result, they sailed through the small group activities that were designed to enable them to learn how to set employees up for success, assess different motivators on the job, analyze seven motivating factors and when to use them, and determine when coaching is an appropriate response.

These learning activities provided the necessary theoretical motivational knowledge and some opportunity to apply this knowledge to simulated on-the-job situations. However, the meat and potatoes of the training had to be the participants’ demonstration that they could apply their new learning to address and resolve their real job motivational challenges.

The large group conversation about their challenges and how best to meet them opened up an occasion for powerful learning that easily filled up the remaining training time. During this discussion, the participants discovered that they had common motivational issues. They shared their experience and recommendations to help each other problem solve their situations. The facilitator was able to provide value-added information that was not part of the planned curriculum yet was relevant to the identified challenges.

Ideally, participant-centered training programs are designed to increase participant content knowledge and skills, check for comprehension, and then let the participants apply what they have learned in order to build their confidence in their own competence and, thereby, set them up for success back on the job. In this case, the lesson easily accommodated the additional discussion about how to meet specific motivational challenges.

The key take-away from this article should be that participant-centered training programs offer facilitators broad leeway to take the time, when it is available, to more deeply explore the participants’ interests and concerns. The one surefire way to fill a training gap is to give the participants the floor so they can ask pressing questions and, together with the facilitator, seek to find satisfactory solutions.

May your learning be sweet.

Deborah

Tip #354: Avoid the Mistake of Thinking Participatory Learning Activities are a Gimmick

Posted on December 20, 2010 by admin

The better a man is the more mistakes he will make for the more things he will try.
Peter Drucker

One reason that participatory learning activities get a bad reputation is the fact that some trainers incorporate them solely to add an element of fun and excitement. For participants who are stretched thin at work and feel that every minute of training should be of practical use, having to participate in extended fun and games that have no relevance to the training content is a waste of their time.

Please avoid these three mistakes when thinking about participatory learning activities:

Mistake #1: Believing participatory learning activities are pure entertainment rather than a training necessity.

There are four reasons for using participatory learning activities, and none of these are merely the result of the curriculum designer’s whim:

1. Participants have to be actively involved to demonstrate their comprehension and ability to use their learned skills to apply, analyze, evaluate and create. If the desired learning level is higher than knowledge, the only way to achieve this is through participatory learning activities.

2. Brain studies have determined that the memory is based on emotions. The more senses involved, the more effective the learning and the greater probability of retention. That is why the “whole body” learning experience of participatory learning activities is so important.

3. Only participatory learning activities will satisfy the needs of different learning styles to do more than simply sit, listen and read the PowerPoint slides accompanying a lecture. They also enable participants to verbalize, have a hands on experience, and move.

4. Participatory learning activities are the best way for a trainer to determine if the participants are learning what they need to learn during the course of the training. At the very least, lecturers can check participant comprehension using questionnaires, pop ups, shout outs, or case studies.

Mistake #2: Thinking participatory learning does not belong in technical training.

Training based on an expert lecturer has been the paradigm for technical training. However, it is a mistake to think that the delivery of technical training needs to be driven by a subject matter expert rather than by the participants.

The subject matter expert is most significant during the design of the training program. Why? Design decisions regarding the training content, the desired level of learning, and the best way for participants to demonstrate their learning are all based on the subject matter expert’s knowledge and experience.

The other problem with this paradigm is that lecture can only achieve the learning level of knowledge. All higher levels of learning (comprehension, application, analysis, evaluation and creation) require participatory learning activities. In fact, programs that are intended to build technical skills have the greatest need for participants to demonstrate their new degree of competency in the classroom.

Mistake #3: Overlooking the recuperative power of energizers.

Learning is hard work. An energizer is a fast and simple way to reinvigorate participants when their energy starts to lag. This includes any brief participatory activity that physically engages the participants. The brain needs a lot of oxygen to function at peak efficiency. Getting participants up and moving around will cause them to breathe more deeply, resulting in more oxygen in their brains.

Have them stand up and throw balls to each other for the duration of a short upbeat song. Have them line up by the month and day of their birth and then count off to create new table groups. Plug in a relay race, where teams of participants need to identify key content that begins with each letter of the topic. All of these activities take only a few minutes and generate a lot of new energy in the group.

The decision to incorporate participatory learning activities is not based on a whim. The desired level of learning for the key training content determines the nature of the learning activities. Participatory learning activities are essential for successful learning in any training program. They are not intended, and should never be used, simply as gimmicks irrelevant to the learning objectives and the learning process.

May your learning be sweet.

Deborah