Posted by RK Prasad on Thursday, August 27, 2009 @ 06:44 AM
Sage on the Stage:
None
Guide on the Side:
Certainly Guide on the Side, the 21st century workforce demand student centre approach to enable the Student’s Vision. The guiding and tutoring is far batter then traditional “Data Transmission”.
Personally, I would like to be a guide and facilitate collaborative learning where the trainer does not merely spew knowledge/’gyaan’ but helps the learner to grasp and draw inferences by applying their thoughts and experiences.
A trainer, can at best, be a friend or mentor. But the trainer, like any other executive, also has to show measurable results, with limited control on the situation. Therefore, accepting the limitations, and being effective, at the same time, is a tight rope, a trainer shall always walk. S/he is not in the privileged position of being either a sage, or guru. I think this favors the “Guide on the Side” approach.
Clearly, if you need a stage you are not really a sage. Guides on the side are quickly recognized for who they really are by the best and brightest learners.
In the world of technical training, most learners need a hands-on element to make the learning stick, therefore, in my industry; the selection would definitely be “guide on the side.”
In my humble opinion, I believe you should be the “guide on the side”. Now, this is standard practice if you are doing distance learning but is more difficult for those who have been a face to face facilitator. However, if you really consider adult learning preferences it’s the guide they want not the sage on the stage.
The most important lesson that any teacher can share with students is learning how to think through situations. In fact, the teacher demonstrates this skill by acknowledging NOT having all the answers and showing how he or she works through these problems. Just sharing information may help someone in the short-term, but showing them how to work through the unknown has true long-term value.
Another way to look at this discussion is – are you creating a teacher centric or learner centric classroom. With the “stage” approach you are in teacher mode and you take a lot of the responsibility for what happens in the classroom. A learner centric approach assumes that the learner is showing up ready and willing to learn and the responsibility for the learning is theirs. You are there as a resource to support and guide them in getting what they need to be successful in their job. I am not so sure you can’t have a facilitated session and still be a sage. The challenge is let the learner do what they can first and use your “wisdom” to support their efforts and fill in the holes. This is really more than a shift for the trainer it is really a cultural shift in the organization – from a training mentality to a learning approach. Doing it to them rather than supporting them doing it.
Classroom engagement is essentially what we are discussing here right? My thoughts fall directly in line with Dr. Newman’s. As the modern generational learners appear in the classroom, the facilitators that are able to engage the audience will be a step ahead of the rest of us.
Situational Approach:
I believe that a great teacher is a blend of both a guide and sage. e.g.: Jesus Christ is always depicted as a shepherd (guide) as well as the Rabbi. In regard to “facilitating learning” a great teacher does really mollify the egos of learners; by storytelling, i.e. drama, wit and sometimes humor.
I agree that 9 times out of 10, the guide on the side is the better approach. However, I do think there are times (and topics) for which sage on the stage is expected. As an example, I often do training and teaching on legal subjects. While discussion is encouraged, I find people are more interested in my perspective as a lawyer than on hearing each other talk. Conversely, when I facilitate programs on crisis management, the opposite is true since sharing ideas and experiences is most valuable.
In training the learning needs to be centered on the learner. From understanding who the learners are, and what skills and knowledge they bring with them, to individual practice and feedback in simulated or real on-the-job conditions. In performance-based learning, and just-in-time learning environments today, many learners may even prefer learning without an Instructor, Facilitator or Guru (mentor). If a learner needs to know or do, why do they need a trainer? Do we think that is the only way learning takes place? Maybe the Avatar works here.
I believe that you are saying that we need to capable of being both the sage and the guide. As you illustrate, the balance between ego drive and empathy possessed by high successful sales people, is what makes make them successful. Trainers, consultants, and teachers need to balance providing knowledge, being the guide, and wisdom, being the sage in order to succeed on behalf of the student and to fill the need for personal gratification. As with effective sales, the balance is dependent on the situation, as you point out. Reading the situation is key, and those who are able to do so are highly effective. This is what makes all of these professions both an art and a science.
Circumstances, situations and conditions do make training important. Call it whatever: The Guru, The Sage or The Knowledge Provider. It is always what the learner learns that is important along with the learn ability that the trainer gets out of the learner. So adopt what is needed given the circumstances on which the training arises. Trainers have massive egos so let’s not talk about that. The skills are far more important today in any field.
As a teacher of religion and technology, I would suggest that both are applicable. There is a time for information exchange, and a time for synthesis. The information I share with my students is retained best if I give them an opportunity to use it right away. If the lesson is about selecting a computer to run particular software, the class will complete an exercise matching the capacities of the computer to the specifications of the software. If the lesson is about kindness, I may ask my students what they think the results would be if they performed a kindness to someone they did not know. Then I would have them try that during the day and make note of what happened. There is time for a Sage on the Stage, and a time for a Guide on the Side. It is wisdom is to know when to use each.
A simple-looking question is often much more complicated that it appears. “…should we follow a ‘Situational Approach’ and adopt the appropriate ‘avatar’ depending on the situation and the kind of learners?” Yes, within the constraints of the design of the instructional experience. “If so, what are the parameters?” The instructional model, content, and learner characteristics (at least) determine the parameters for choosing between sage or guide or avatar of another kind, and for designing the behavior of the selected “helper.” A constructivist learning experience requires very different (and looser) guidance than a more controlled learning experience, such as synectics. Content or subject matter should determine – at least in part – the type of assistance users would prefer, or that the related community of practice would accept. Novice learners may need more guidance than near-experts.
There are a number of factors that can influence whether to adopt a more ‘teacher-centered’ or ‘learner-centered’ approach, one of which is the cultural diversity of the target group. People around the world differ in how they like to work when learning. In some cultures, such as the United Kingdom and the USA the ‘guide on the side’ works well, as people prefer consultative management and facilitated learning approaches. In others, for example Germany and far Eastern countries, people like to respect a teacher, so the ’sage on the stage’ may be preferable.
I think that a mix is appropriate and that the leader, like the instructor, needs to adapt to the situation. I don’t believe that anyone confuses the “guide” approach with the leader or instructor being the protégé’s “friend.” Nevertheless, in each situation, it is critical for the leader to understand the perspective of the other person (empathize). This makes him or her, a more effective communicator and allows the instruction or motivation to be made more relevant to the other individuals. In some situations, one needs to be a sage – explaining the project timeline and milestones to a team or describing a metabolic pathway to a class – but awareness of the needs of the adult learner will make the job easier and improve the chances for success. In the case of the project kickoff meeting, allowing interaction for the team to discuss the project and help to mold the details will better utilize the diverse expertise of the group and will give the participants a better sense of ownership. To present the metabolic pathways in an active learning mode will improve retention and allow for more depth and relevance. In each case, however, if the project is getting out of hand or the classroom discussion is going off on a tangent, the leader-instructor needs to have the agility and stature (or as Colbert might say, “sageiness”) to retake the stage and assert more of the guru role, if necessary.
Sage or Guide are the roles! A good trainer is like a good actor who plays these roles based on the requirements. What matters is integrity & proficiency!
Although I agree that the “guide on the side” creates a better learning experience, the other side of the coin is that the objectives of the training and the profile of the learner need to be considered as well. One cannot participate in a didactic discussion if there is no knowledge or comprehension of the basic concepts being taught. There is value in learning objectives and when considering Bloom’s Taxonomy, if you are dealing with transfer of information, the learning strategies would support “sage on the stage.”
I use a four stage approach to teaching. This is in order to cover the method the student is most comfortable in learning:
Stage 1. To discuss the theory and background of what is being taught. It answers the reason why we need to know the material, as well as some concept of what is being taught. I also explain how I will teach. This only works with some students.
Stage 2. Demonstrate. Show how it is done, for the visual students.
Stage 3. Have them perform it while I coach. (Guide on the Side). Tactile students.
Stage 4. They show me. This verifies that they understand and that they are comfortable with the knowledge gained.
Posted by RK Prasad on Tuesday, August 25, 2009 @ 03:51 AM
Research and experience show that the personality of a top sales person exhibits a balance of ego drive (a deep inner need for self-gratification) and empathy (an ability to relate to people and act for their benefit). Likewise, in a good leader, we see a balance between a concern for production and a concern for the people (Management Grid, Blake and Mouton).
I am sure you will agree with me that teachers, corporate trainers and facilitators of learning are definitely leaders. We lead our learners through the most joyous of human journeys – Learning! Like Moses leading the Israelites though the desert to the land flowing with milk and honey!
A leader motivates, envisions, inspires, communicates, cajoles, reprimands… so does a teacher. A leader is driven by his ego. Who among us can deny the thrill of self-gratification when we stand in front of a group and lead them? So, why belittle the ‘sage’ in us?
On the other hand, how much of empathy does trainer need to relate to his flock? Does being a ‘guide by the side’ depend upon the kind of learners, the trainer is dealing with? Or are we just donning the role of ‘guide’ only to mollify the egos of learners? What exactly we mean by ‘facilitating’ learning?
It looks like I am a bit partial to the ‘sage’ approach. Well! I am from the land of the ‘gurus’, where a student speaks of his Parents, his God and his Teacher in the same breath, where students respect their teachers for a lifetime for sharing their invaluable knowledge. It is fascinating to read about the wonderful relationship Indians share with their ‘gurus’ (We even have a Teachers Day – September 5 – to commemorate teachers). Enough of that, though…
Coming back to the question of which is the best approach – ‘sage’ or ‘guide’, should we follow a ‘Situational Approach’ and adopt the appropriate ‘avatar’ depending on the situation and the kind of learners? If so, what are the parameters?
I would welcome my colleagues to respond with their knowledge and experience in addressing this dilemma.
Posted by RK Prasad on Thursday, August 20, 2009 @ 08:42 AM
I have posted the discussion question, “Learning Styles and Instructional Design, do they go hand in hand?” in LinkedIn groups earlier this week. There were more than 80 responses. I thought the combined wisdom of 80 of us should be shared.
Here is a snapshot of the responses:
Each response was great, reflecting the unique expertise of the respondent and his/her willingness to share it. Here are some responses in verbatim:
In Favor of Learning Styles:
Learning Styles and Instructional Design – They should go hand in hand and yes it is practical to accommodate major learning styles while designing a course.
When I design a course, I make sure that my lesson plan includes the different learning styles.I also go through the learning types in my class introductions when possible. This helps me alter my content to adjust to different learning styles if time and topic allow.
Dr. Sarah Church lays out a great learning style summary which points out some differences in learning styles based on age, gender, etc. It can be found at: http://www.teresadybvig.com/learnsty.htm
As an instructional designer with 20+ years of experience, I do believe that there are three principal methods of gathering and processing knowledge that are always found in any group of students: learning by seeing it done, learning by hearing how to do it, and learning by doing it yourself.
Yes, it is practicable to accommodate learning styles, and based on the findings of a Learner Analysis, when designing a course, instructional designers should indeed consider varied learning styles of their target audience and design accordingly. There is data to support these theories; you can find plenty of information by doing a scholarly literature review.
Against Learning Styles:
I am extremely skeptical about learning styles. There’s no data to support any of the various learning style theories, and as a matter of just plain common sense, many of them seem pretty far-fetched. In my opinion, a designer is much better advised to consider approaches that are supported by actual research findings.
When you start thinking about “learning styles” when designing e-Learning, you’re usually heading in the wrong direction.
I agree about the various theories, but I am more inclined to question whether our learning styles are a function of nature or nurture. As adults, we may have modified our learning style based on the ways we have been taught. Rather than design a course for specific learning styles, we design materials to reach as many as possible.
Actually, they don’t have to; too much attention to the LSI will slow both you and the students down.
It depends on a few parameters:
I have actually taken learning style surveys of prospective audiences prior to developing courses. And in fact, have based decisions on the majority rules. Even though learners have a learning style preference, everyone can benefit from any learning regardless of the style; it may not just be their particular preference.
In addition to various learning styles, trainers also need to keep in mind generational differences.
A designer of course content like an author of anything needs to recognize that they will never appeal to everyone at this time but that as long as their material is good, delivered well in whatever format they are comfortable in and they are passionate about getting the message across, the learners will come.
The key is not designing to a supposed perceptual modality, developmental stage or ability, but making the content relevant and engaging to the learner, so they see the need and the application.
I think it depends on what you are preparing students for. If it’s highly specific and targeted, you can focus on a particular learning style.
Posted by RK Prasad on Tuesday, August 18, 2009 @ 09:12 AM
Kolb’s learning theory introduces us to four distinct learning styles (or preferences), which are based on a four-stage learning cycle – learning by feeling, watching, thinking and doing.
In other words, we all agree that individuals learn uniquely, combining a mix of the above preferences to bring out their own unique style of learning. We also appreciate that although there are as many unique learning styles as there are individuals; we can categorize them into a finite number as shown very elegantly by David Kolbe.
My question is how practicable or feasible it is to try and accommodate various learning styles while designing a course, be it classroom or online?
In a classroom, the elements of instruction used seem to depend more on what the instructor/facilitator is good with rather than on addressing a variety of learning styles that the audience brings to the class.
As far as online courses are concerned, I agree we all make sure that there is a judicious balance of content, graphics, animation and interactivity.
But is there a more objective method to decide how much of each is recommended? I don’t remember collecting data on the learning styles of the target audience before sitting down design a course. Is there any research available that suggests a general distribution of learning styles in a given population?
If we know, even in general terms, the distribution of learning styles in a reference set of population and if we can get hold of an objective method of deciding what instructional elements we can use and in what proportion, I think our training programs will be much more effective.
I would welcome my colleagues to respond with their knowledge and experience in addressing this area.
Posted by RK Prasad on Thursday, August 13, 2009 @ 08:15 AM
I have posted the discussion question, “How much of Entertaining advisable in Training?” in LinkedIn groups earlier this week. There were more than 150 responses.
Here is a snapshot of responses:
Here are some relatively more detailed responses in verbatim:
A balance of Humor
Humor and fun create energy
Humor can also serve as a welcome
It’s all about the content you’re delivering
People can’t learn if they’re asleep
Planned humor
Humor breaks down barriers
Humor: Audience, Culture & Topic is the Key!
Primarily you will need to consider the audience
Learners have different learning styles
Knowing your audience is the key
Depends on the topic being delivered
Keep in tune with the cultures of your audience
Engagement instead of Entertainment
The better term is “engagement”
Engagement is the key
Think of “entertainment” in training like special effects in a movie
Posted by RK Prasad on Tuesday, August 11, 2009 @ 04:29 AM
We know the humor is an extremely powerful force, sometimes even life saving (Anatomy of an Illness, Norman Cousins).
Children are natural learners. Children learn very fast and a lot before they turn five. They put together ideas, experiences and things creatively and freely. We also see that they laugh a lot. I read somewhere that a 5-year-old laughs over 400 times a day! But as we grow older, we become more constrained and goal oriented when we learn. And we laugh much less.
We tend to agree with Elliott Massie when he says that every great classroom-based class that he had attended contained humor and laughter. Off hand, we agree that positive humor will help establish a climate conducive to learning, reduce stress, aids retention of information, breaks down barriers between facilitators and learners, and foster cohesiveness.
But the question is how?
I know humor is like creativity. It is intuitive. It is very difficult to structure and tame it with a process. Some people are humorous, some are not. (I find Indians notorious for their lack of humor; I think we take ourselves too seriously L) Can we learn to be humorous and entertaining? Are there any tried and tested means and methods?
And how much?
Now coming to how much of entertaining or humor is good? When we see advertisements that make us laugh a lot and those we find very entertaining, we often remember the advertisement not the product they endorse. Similarly, I think too much of entertaining in training will actually impede learning. Participants will have a good time. Your reaction level feedback will be great but learners’ level may not be that great! Again are there any norms? Should we use humor only during ice-breaking or towards the end of the session?
What about humor in eLearning?
I think eLearning poses the greatest challenge. The only piece of humor I ever encountered in an eLearning course was the humorous feedback in an assessment. Any ideas and experiences?
Thank you for reading my blog and I welcome your comments and sharing of experiences.
Posted by RK Prasad on Thursday, August 6, 2009 @ 04:00 AM
We have a tendency to solve all performance problems with training interventions, even though a majority of performance-related issues are more amenable to non-instructional interventions.
I think a performance support system or a job aid is appropriate when:
The task has to be done quickly or speedily
The task is infrequently performed
The task is complex, involves many steps, or has many attributes
The consequence of error is intolerable
Performance depends on a large body of information
Performance depends on knowledge, procedures, or approaches that change frequently
Performance can be improved through employee self-assessment and correction with standards in mind
There is high turnover and the task is perceived to be simple
There is little time or few resources to devote to training
In these tough economic times, it makes a lot of sense to do some kind of study (like Harless Front-end analysis and the thirteen smart questions: http://www.ue295.com/xtranet/html/timeline/harless.html) to ascertain if the issue at hand can really be treated instructionally or we should just go for a simple job-aid.
I welcome you to share your experiences where a performance support system or a simple job aid like a checklist worked very well for you.
Posted by RK Prasad on Tuesday, August 4, 2009 @ 03:46 AM
Last weekend, I was reading an old tattered booklet on Elmer Wheeler and his selling techniques which I picked up from one of the booksellers who sell old, second-hand books of a wide variety of subjects from the pavements (in front of stores that are closed on Sundays) here in Hyderabad, India. These pavements are a fascinating place to spend a lazy Sunday afternoon, pottering among literally thousands of books, collected from across the country from owners who for reasons unknown sell these precious books to vendors for a couple of rupees.
Wheeler was quite a pioneer in way. As a newspaper advertising space sales person, he discovered that the weak link between effective advertising which bring prospective customers to the stores and the actual sale is the salesperson. He realized that getting his clients ads in the newspaper is probably just the beginning of his job. That started him off on a ten-year research on what words or sentences spoken by a sales person will substantially increase sale. He purportedly tested about 1 million words on more than 19 million people before he came with his “wheeler points”.
He was fond of saying that the best-looking merchandize won’t sell for itself and prettiest dotted line won’t sign itself without the intelligent persuasion of somebody’s words.
Wheeler Point 1: Sell the sizzle, not the steak
Discover the main benefit which will appeal to the customer and convey that very benefit. Don’t sell drill 4” drill bits; sell 4” holes. In other words, talk in terms of benefits not features.
Wheeler Point 2: Don’t write; telegraph
As a salesperson, use minimum words. Every unnecessary word jeopardizes the sale. It is what you say in the first 10 seconds that will make or break the sale.
Wheeler Point 3: Say it with flowers
You ‘sizzles’ should be demonstrated. Any physical action, gestures, expressions or still better showing how the product works. Get action with action.
Wheeler Point 4: Don’t ask if, ask which
Always give the customer a choice between something and something; not something and nothing. Don’t ask if, ask which, when, where or how.
Wheeler Point 5: Watch your bark
The finest ‘sizzle’ said is telegraphed in 10 seconds with a bouquet of flowers, and enough ‘which’, ‘when’, ‘where’ and ‘how’ will not work if your voice does not have enough sincerity and enthusiasm.
There are some more wheeler points. But even these five have achieved such stupendous increase in sales that it is almost unbelievable. You must read the book to appreciate the effectiveness of these ‘tested sentences’. I found a free online version at http://www.sentencesthatsell.com
I am sure that the current day sales training is doing a good job. But I think for product training, a training program on Wheeler’s methods can do wonders. And it can be done online, with a carefully designed eLearning course.
What do you think? Thank you for reading my blog and I welcome your comments and sharing of experiences.
The CommLab India eLearning Blog is all about the latest, most useful and most talked about topics under Corporate Training, Performance and Learning Technology.
