On Monday 7th March I attended a one-day hands-on course designed to equip delegates with essential training skills, and knowledge of how to train and to interact when training. It was organised by the University of Cambridge Museums and delivered by Cambridge Regional College, and covered a wide range of content.
It was a small group - 8 in total, mostly from the Fitz, but with one person from the Whipple, which meant many of us knew each other at least by sight, if not by name. The positions represented were quite diverse, which was nice - HR, libraries, conservation, technician, visitor services. And it was interesting that it was an all-female group - the only man who was going to attend couldn't make it in the end. I'm not sure it would have made any difference, I just thought it was worth remarking on!
We began with an icebreaker, and immediately followed it up with "Why do we have icebreakers?". This pretty much set the tone of the day - it was an incredibly practical session, filled with "Why do we do this? What are the advantages? What are the disadvantages? What should we be doing?" Throughout the day, we were being encouraged to confront our behaviours, question our methods and see what could be improved, which was different for each person there.
So what did we cover? All of this:
When giving feedback, the trainer recommended the Pendleton (1984) model:
The trainer asked about when and where to give feedback. For example, is it okay to give feedback in passing in a corridor? I thought yes if quick and positive ("you handled that difficult situation just now really well") but no if it was going to need discussion, or was negative.
Still talking about feedback, the trainer talked about how important it was to be non-judgemental in giving feedback: descriptive (not evaluative), specific (not generalised), relating to behaviour (not personality) and offering choices (not dictating what to do).
We covered how to design training, and learned about the classic SMART outcomes:
Specific
Measurable
Achievable
Realistic
Time-based
We then had to design effectively a lesson plan to teach the course leader how to make a sandwich. It was interested seeing how the different people responded and how they covered it. My very Activist approach was no-frills and straightforward. The reflectors spent a lot of time covering the background of the scenario, while others designed a YouTube video series with a specific audience in mind, with a demonstration.
After this we learned about the four stages of learning, exemplified by learning to drive:
1. Unconscious incompetence ("I don't know I can't drive.")
2. Conscious incompetence ("I know I can't drive.")
3. Conscious competence ("I have to think about my driving, but I can drive.")
4. Unconscious competence ("I don't have to think, I can just drive.")
If someone can't get to stage 4, no matter how well they've been trained, it might be a case for performance review (see number 6 above).
After all this, we finished with a group activity where we were split into two teams. We were to complete a jigsaw, but before that, we had to write a plan detailing how we would tackle it. I found it interesting that we had made a plan and didn't stick to it that well. We had started looking for edges and corners, and had decided which orientation the jigsaw would be as we built it, but after that it was carnage! This really brought home the need for understanding the way you work when planning. We were so competitive that instead of working through the plan methodically, we went at everything all in one go. Plans to focus on turning over all pieces to face up while looking for edges went out the window, so I concentrated on that, and I began handing pieces to others to insert in their portions of jigsaw. I was told I was bossy when I applied to do my PGCE (by the interviewer!!), and I could see my "dominant leadership skills" ;) steering the group.
Overall this was a really useful course, as it highlighted the areas where I'm weak (planning, evaluating) and where I'm strong (delivering training), and gave a lot of information about how to tackle the areas where I need improvement. Hopefully when I take on the training of the reference library intern (starting in a couple of weeks!), I'll be a bit more prepared.
It was a small group - 8 in total, mostly from the Fitz, but with one person from the Whipple, which meant many of us knew each other at least by sight, if not by name. The positions represented were quite diverse, which was nice - HR, libraries, conservation, technician, visitor services. And it was interesting that it was an all-female group - the only man who was going to attend couldn't make it in the end. I'm not sure it would have made any difference, I just thought it was worth remarking on!
We began with an icebreaker, and immediately followed it up with "Why do we have icebreakers?". This pretty much set the tone of the day - it was an incredibly practical session, filled with "Why do we do this? What are the advantages? What are the disadvantages? What should we be doing?" Throughout the day, we were being encouraged to confront our behaviours, question our methods and see what could be improved, which was different for each person there.
So what did we cover? All of this:
- How to adapt training to suit different learning styles and environments
- How to maintain interaction whilst delivering sessions
- Room layout and resources
- Communication styles, mannerisms and non-verbal communication
- Learning and learning styles
- Training needs analysis
- Instructional techniques and job instruction
- Presentations - audience analysis, preparing the setting, delivery, visual aids
- Effective questioning techniques
- Evaluation
- Before we begin training, we must first establish what is already known. It seems obvious, but that just means it's more imperative that we don't overlook it!
- We have to take into account the needs of a) the trainer, b) the trainee and c) what's being taught.
- The trainer has 3 goals when delivering training. It has to be: a) informative, b) enjoyable and c) memorable.
- Feedback. We need it to learn/change, and don't do it nearly enough.
- Evaluation should be fair, objective and consistent, no matter who you're dealing with.
- Problems: Share the issues. Involve the learner. Document what you've done and what you're going to do.
- Documentation. Generally we don't do this nearly enough either.
When giving feedback, the trainer recommended the Pendleton (1984) model:
- Clarify facts.
- Learner discusses what went well.
- Trainer discusses what went well.
- Learner describes what could have been done better and suggests changes.
- Trainer identifies what could have been done better and suggests changes.
The trainer asked about when and where to give feedback. For example, is it okay to give feedback in passing in a corridor? I thought yes if quick and positive ("you handled that difficult situation just now really well") but no if it was going to need discussion, or was negative.
Still talking about feedback, the trainer talked about how important it was to be non-judgemental in giving feedback: descriptive (not evaluative), specific (not generalised), relating to behaviour (not personality) and offering choices (not dictating what to do).
We covered how to design training, and learned about the classic SMART outcomes:
Specific
Measurable
Achievable
Realistic
Time-based
We then had to design effectively a lesson plan to teach the course leader how to make a sandwich. It was interested seeing how the different people responded and how they covered it. My very Activist approach was no-frills and straightforward. The reflectors spent a lot of time covering the background of the scenario, while others designed a YouTube video series with a specific audience in mind, with a demonstration.
After this we learned about the four stages of learning, exemplified by learning to drive:
1. Unconscious incompetence ("I don't know I can't drive.")
2. Conscious incompetence ("I know I can't drive.")
3. Conscious competence ("I have to think about my driving, but I can drive.")
4. Unconscious competence ("I don't have to think, I can just drive.")
If someone can't get to stage 4, no matter how well they've been trained, it might be a case for performance review (see number 6 above).
After all this, we finished with a group activity where we were split into two teams. We were to complete a jigsaw, but before that, we had to write a plan detailing how we would tackle it. I found it interesting that we had made a plan and didn't stick to it that well. We had started looking for edges and corners, and had decided which orientation the jigsaw would be as we built it, but after that it was carnage! This really brought home the need for understanding the way you work when planning. We were so competitive that instead of working through the plan methodically, we went at everything all in one go. Plans to focus on turning over all pieces to face up while looking for edges went out the window, so I concentrated on that, and I began handing pieces to others to insert in their portions of jigsaw. I was told I was bossy when I applied to do my PGCE (by the interviewer!!), and I could see my "dominant leadership skills" ;) steering the group.
Overall this was a really useful course, as it highlighted the areas where I'm weak (planning, evaluating) and where I'm strong (delivering training), and gave a lot of information about how to tackle the areas where I need improvement. Hopefully when I take on the training of the reference library intern (starting in a couple of weeks!), I'll be a bit more prepared.
