This tip discusses the steps I take with managers to prove that lecture is ineffective when compared to participatory training.
I blame it on the approach that many college professors still model. If lecture is good enough for higher education, then many business owners and managers assume that lecture is good enough for their employee training. But as we know, “good enough”is not necessarily the most cost-effective use of training dollars. This is because there is a lot of learning slippage that occurs.
My Discussion With Managers About Why Lecture is Ineffective
When a company is interested in training on any topic, I like to meet with the owners or managers to discuss their desired results. When their employees walk out of the training, what does management want them to think or do differently? Sometimes the desired results are attitudinal changes. At other times the focus is on specific skill building. Regardless of the desired end result, I have found that introducing two concepts into the discussion makes all the difference in the ultimate training that is approved.
First, I walk them through the building blocks of learning.
Knowledge alone isn’t appealing.
This is actuallyBloom’s Taxonomy of Behavioral Learning Objectives. I draw each level as I go. I ask them if they will be satisfied if their employees leave the training knowing something but not understanding it. For example, the way I can tell them that E= MC2 without knowing what it really means. Understandably, knowledge alone is usually not the level of learning that appeals to them.
They Desire Application
So I ask them if they want the employees to understand what they have learned. This typically garners nods of agreement. So we know that we need to at least get to comprehension. However, if skills are involved, I ask them if it will be all right if the employees know and understand the new skill or technique, but don’t use it. If it is not all right (and we can count on that response!), then I explain that application is the next required level of learning.
Second, I ask them what level of learning lecture alone can accomplish.
I may need to coach them with the answer. I repeat what many of us were taught years ago regarding lecture: “Tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them, then tell them what you’ve told them.”
Participants need to interact with the information.
I point out that with lecture, we only know that the lecturer knows the information to the third power. We have no idea if the participants know or understand the content of the lecture. That is, until they have some opportunity to interact with the information. This neatly brings us to the need for more participant-centered learning activities, such as:
- large and small group discussions,
- pop ups,
- question and answer sessions,
- questionnaires,
- worksheets,
- case studies, and
- games.
Application Requires Participant Practice
It is a short step from this to the next point. In to achieve application as a learning level, the participants need to be able to practice what they have learned in the classroom. At this point, we can introduce hands on, simulation, and role playing exercises.
They want effective and lasting learning, which is the most cost-effective use of their training dollars. Consequently, participant-centered learning activities are the logical and only solution. Few reasonable people will argue with that conclusion!!
If your trainers would benefit from learning how to design and facilitate participant-centered learning, please book a call to discuss a tailored train-the-trainer program. https://laurelandassociates.com/contact/
