Training the trainers?
I have been developing a new training class that aims to teach engineers how to develop and present technical training that is effective.
I have read lots of books on presentations and on training, and have come to believe that much of what they say is at best irrelevant. They concentrate a lot of what I think are side-issues - like 'body language' or font sizes for slides. They also often seem to me to be patronising - the standard advice to have 'no more than three points per slide' is insulting to engineers who are quite capable of reading and following a very complex schematic diagram that conveys a huge amount of information in a condensed form. I read one book that advised me to "make sure you know where the presentation is to be held". Well, I suppose that is sound advice but if someone can't figure out they need to know where to go then I don't want to waste my time with them - I am aiming for people who are not totally clueless.
This made me think what in fact makes training effective - and whether it is possible to devise training in such a way that the effect of side-issues like poor body language, nerves, etc can be minimised. Sort of focussing on the message, instead of on the messenger. I have sat through some dire presentations but still learnt a lot because the material had been well planned and organized - equally I have sat through some polished presentations where I learnt very little because the speaker was all charism and no content.
Anyway, I started to develop the idea that the plan, and especially the narrative flow, is most important and can 'carry' a poor or nervous presenter if it is done well enough. This is based on several ideas, but all around the notion that training is telling a story - a connected narrative that builds on each previous set of points in a clear and logical progression without skipping any vital connecting items. In a way this part was easy, as it is just a matter of capturing sound teaching practice and explaining it. The hard part was to find ways to make the narrative and the preparation work well enough that a poor presenter could still convey useful information. My basic starting point was to devise a way to identify the learning aims, collect and organise material, and check the flow of ideas, so that for example a badly dressed, smelly, quietly spoken, shy and nervous presenter could still give training that would work. All I need to do now is to find (or to become) a smelly, badly dressed, etc... so I can verify my ideas.
I have read lots of books on presentations and on training, and have come to believe that much of what they say is at best irrelevant. They concentrate a lot of what I think are side-issues - like 'body language' or font sizes for slides. They also often seem to me to be patronising - the standard advice to have 'no more than three points per slide' is insulting to engineers who are quite capable of reading and following a very complex schematic diagram that conveys a huge amount of information in a condensed form. I read one book that advised me to "make sure you know where the presentation is to be held". Well, I suppose that is sound advice but if someone can't figure out they need to know where to go then I don't want to waste my time with them - I am aiming for people who are not totally clueless.
This made me think what in fact makes training effective - and whether it is possible to devise training in such a way that the effect of side-issues like poor body language, nerves, etc can be minimised. Sort of focussing on the message, instead of on the messenger. I have sat through some dire presentations but still learnt a lot because the material had been well planned and organized - equally I have sat through some polished presentations where I learnt very little because the speaker was all charism and no content.
Anyway, I started to develop the idea that the plan, and especially the narrative flow, is most important and can 'carry' a poor or nervous presenter if it is done well enough. This is based on several ideas, but all around the notion that training is telling a story - a connected narrative that builds on each previous set of points in a clear and logical progression without skipping any vital connecting items. In a way this part was easy, as it is just a matter of capturing sound teaching practice and explaining it. The hard part was to find ways to make the narrative and the preparation work well enough that a poor presenter could still convey useful information. My basic starting point was to devise a way to identify the learning aims, collect and organise material, and check the flow of ideas, so that for example a badly dressed, smelly, quietly spoken, shy and nervous presenter could still give training that would work. All I need to do now is to find (or to become) a smelly, badly dressed, etc... so I can verify my ideas.
Comments
Post a Comment