The Power of Thought

I have been working on this project – in the standard onsite-offshore model. Like in most such cases, the person I’m working with onsite is not known to me – haven’t met him, even virtually, before this project. The only thing I know is his name and now his voice – thanks to the weekly calls we have.

I have baggage from all my past experiences with the onsite-offshore model; the chief one being that onsite and offshore can’t be friends and are usually working at cross-purposes. Though, we’re meant to be working towards the common goal of delivering a great product to the client and making them happy. So, as I started this project, I have no animosity towards this onsite person but I’m constantly on my guard; I’m polite but not necessarily warm; I’m as transparent as I need to be but not more and I’m forever judging – on every call and every mail. Maybe he’s doing the same.

Today, the weekly call was going to be tough – this was my first thought as I woke up. I had project concerns that I was sure onsite would not appreciate and they’d be ready to push me into a corner and I did not want to be pushed. And, then I "thought” – why have I decided that onsite will not appreciate my concerns, why have I decided that this is us vs. them, why? The answer was - nothing I have seen on this project – all this was purely baggage and conditioning. So, I “decided” I’m going into this call as a team – not as us vs. them. It suddenly brought a smile to my voice as I said “Good evening, how are you?” And, I heard the smile reciprocated in his response – maybe it had always been there but I hadn't realized. The tension melted and as I raised the concerns, I actually heard the understanding and possible solutions coming from the other end. It caused me to be more open than I have ever been and that felt good. 

Bottom line – resolutions seem to be in sight. That is the power of thought…

Making a Difference

Like all my other employers, Vyaktitva in some way has helped define my vyaktitva. A lifelong learning for me happened in a 5-min phone call with one of my seniors at Vyaktitva.

I and another colleague were about to start off a 5-day ID workshop for a client organization. This was the first assignment I was doing for Vyaktitva and though I had done training sessions, they had been exclusively done in-house and largely for my own team. The good thing was that the content was completely known to me – I could talk about ID in my sleep. But I had long back realized, based on my experience with teachers at my school, that knowing the subject area/content was one thing and being able to conduct a successful session was quite another.

Just before session started, I was very very nervous. Then, the call happened. My senior called to wish me luck and I guess he sensed that I was nervous. At that time he said, “Go into the room and look at the people as they walk in. Just before you start addressing the class, say to yourself – I will make a difference to each one of these people today. And, then start the session. As you progress through the days, every time you feel challenged, remember that you will make a difference to each person. I’m sure you will do a great job.”

I did what he told me and ended up doing a great first session. I did many more sessions after that one and got much better as a trainer/facilitator. To this day, when I feel signs of nervousness in a training session or even in a meeting where I’m presenting to very senior people, I say this sentence to myself and like magic my nervousness reduces dramatically.

I analyzed why this helped me and this is what I came up with.

·         Saying and believing this instantly puts me away from the spotlight and moves the spotlight to the audience. The session is not about me performing well. It is about the audience benefitting from it.

·         Whoever the audience might be, a bunch of very young, difficult trainees or a group of very senior corporate types, I can always believe there is something I will say that will help them. This also keeps me constantly cognizant of what the audience expects and helps me to mould my message appropriately.

·         I realize that there will always be some people in the audience who will not want to listen to me, will have other preoccupations or priorities or will simply want to give me a tough time. This doesn’t bother me very much anymore because I’m very clear that all I’m doing is to help make a difference – so I’ll do my best. If that doesn’t help some people, tough luck! Yes, when I analyze the session, I do see what I could have done differently to reach that person(s) too. But I don’t fret too much about it.

With that one phone call, my senior did make a big difference!

So, Where does Video Work Well?

In my last post I compared one kind of video training content that I had seen with eLearning. Thinking back I started wondering … in what training situations is video really more effective?

Here are a few examples of where I have seen them used very effectively.

·   To exemplify and therefore help in learning a specific behavior. For example, to teach managers how to give negative feedback or to teach how to conduct a conversation to help someone identify their goals and aspirations.

·    To help people experience certain situations in a simulated environment. For example, before teaching why it is important to first empathize, a video can be used to show what feelings are generated when there is no empathy. A good video can immerse participants in the situation and help them feel the pain. And, this can be a great motivator for learning how not to be the one causing this pain.

·    To help teach a psychomotor skill when it is not possible or is too expensive to provide hands-on training. For example, teaching someone how to maintain a cement kiln. In this situation training can be complete only after hands-on but some amount of initial training can happen through effective use of video.

·    To create awareness of a process. For example, how to handle a customer as they drive into a petrol pump. This course that I have seen was targeted towards attendants at  a petrol pump who were being told about the entire process of handling a customer beginning with directing them to the appropriate filing station as they drive in through to handing over the receipt to them and wishing them a good day as they leave.

In all of the above situations, video was perhaps the most effective method of training and therefore the higher cost of creating such training was completely justified.

Is Video-based Learning Superior to Standard eLearning?

Today, I saw a video on an eLearning  company’s website that claimed that their video eLearning is way better and more engaging than standard slideware eLearning (said in a slightly derogatory tone). I was intrigued and wanted to know more about how they achieved this.

I looked at several samples of learning videos they had on their site. In each of them, I compared what I saw with what I think its equivalent would be in what they call standard slideware eLearning. Here’s what I saw and thought:

Video eLearning	Standard eLearning
A video of an anchor who talks through the content	Audio that talks through the content
On-screen text that the anchor points to while explaining concepts	On-screen text that draws attention to itself through use of some animation or is talked about by the audio
Stock photos, Rendered Graphics, screenshots and yes, even clipart – again pointed to by the anchor or in some cases the anchor vanishes because of lack of screen space	Similar kinds of Graphics and screenshots explained using callouts, highlights and audio

What I obviously did not find (considering it is video and not an interactive course), were interactions. Interactions are very common in standard eLearning – could be simple questions or more complex/interesting activities that the learner needs to do. If designed well, interactions can make the learning content much more engaging and therefore better to learn from.

Bottomline – I am as clueless as I was before about how the company can claim that their video learning modules are better in any way. Each of the features is present in most typical eLearning courses. And, the eLearning courses have the added advantage of interactivity.

So, I think, effectiveness comes not from a specific mode of delivery – it comes only from “good analysis and design” – which includes identifying the best mode of delivery based on the audience, and other client realities. I’m sure Video Learning is the best in certain situations – but it is the role of the Learning Consultant / Instructional Designer to decide when it is the best to use.

Virtual ILT – A Personal Experience

I realized that one of the best ways to figure out strengths, pitfalls and design ideas for a new mode of training is being forced to learn using that mode. Just attending it as a spectator simply does not evoke the required emotions J. Based on my experience, I came up with the following thoughts for designing a good vILT.

Designing for Effective vILT: Things to Keep in Mind

·         If many participants are new to  vILT mode or the application to be used then conduct a mandatory introductory session to familiarize participants with:

o   Application features

o   Norms of a vILT

o   Specific ground rules that the trainer might want to set for the current session

·         A download session (one-way download by the trainer) in vILT is worse than one in a classroom because the learners just switch off

·         If the trainer is not familiar with vILT as a mode, facilitator notes need to be very detailed to ensure:

o   All application features are used effectively and optimally

o   The session does not deteriorate into a download

o   The trainer sets up and uses the ground rules

·         A new vILT facilitator MUST do a mock session with an audience to ensure comfort with the medium before they get into the Live session

·         Design specifically for use of all application features to ensure high level of interaction. For example, start with a poll, follow up with some slides, follow up with an open question that should be answered by a few participants, follow up with use of the whiteboard to explain a concept (instead of creating a slide for it). This will reduce fatigue of monotony.

Here is what I like and disliked:-

What I liked (enjoyed is too strong a word):

·         I could sit at my desk and attend the session – especially since it was spread over many days and I did not “really” have to be away from work 100% - yes, I cheated and gave in to my email checking OCD behavior ;-)

·         I could shut off mentally for small periods of time (a few mins) and do other things (read/send email ;-)) either when the trainer was over explaining or answering questions that I knew the answers to

·         I could do many things just like I would in a classroom though I was sitting at my desk. Some of these were:

o   Talk to my co-attendees (using personal chat – yes! we could bitch about the trainer’s bad pronunciation and hoped to god it was indeed a private note)

o   Ask questions of the trainer (using chat or raising my hand)

o   Hear my co-attendees questions and the trainer’s response to those (even when the trainer got a qs on chat; they would read the qs out and then answer it)

The advantages of peer learning in classroom were all mostly present

·            A set of people sitting in different parts of the country could attend a session being facilitated by a trainer present in yet another location - seamlessly

What I disliked:

·         I could not gauge the pulse of the facilitator and my co-attendees – this would be more of a drawback to a facilitator

·         Though all the s/w features helped imitate a classroom experience, the touchy-feely pieces were missing – such as enjoying a private joke with another participant just using a look

·         The lag between me asking a question and the trainer answering it – he could choose to park it without telling me or even ignore it – especially if the question was a difficult one

What additional features should the software have to enrich the experience:

·         Give the trainer the facility to freeze what is on display and go through other documents on their computer for reference

·         Create a trigger/list of unanswered qs for the trainer so they don’t miss out on questions from participants

What should the trainer(s) have done differently to make the experience better:

·         Know the features of the application well and in what situations what feature needs to be used

·         Be proficient in the use of the application features – especially since they need to track and manage many things simultaneously

·         Set the ground rules so that participants know when to ask questions, how to get the facilitator’s attention and how not to distract them while they are explaining

·         Do more verbal communication than in a f2f situation because visual cues are missing in this mode. For example, if the trainer needs to take a few moments to refer to their notes then they should state that explicitly; otherwise, participants wonder why there is silence and start indicating that they can’t hear.

·         Not shift between pages of the presentation or between 2 different documents – it is very disconcerting

·         Personalize the session by using names of people. For example, instead of saying – I have a qs and reading it out, I wish he would say, “Lakshmi has a question which is …” and then address the participant while replying as he would in a classroom.

·         Switch between whiteboard/presentation and other tools/props appropriately like you would in a classroom

·         Use mike handover effectively instead of not passing it at all or allowing one participant to hog the mike

·         Display the appropriate slide/whiteboard while talking about something

In a nutshell, the experience was not very great – but the learning (not of the subject taught but the mode and how not to use it) was awesome!