Netcheck
By Garry Platt (May 2004 Issue)
0 Comments 
Article Rating: 
Email to a friend | Print Version
I have divided this month’s ‘Netcheck’ into two halves. The first half concentrates on one particular website (two documents, as you’ll see) and the second half looks at a number of websites that will shed light on some of those erroneous and woolly claims so often banded about in our training profession. I think, at the very least, you’ll find this month’s ‘Netcheck’ either interesting, useful or, better still, both!
The first website, or rather documents on a website, was brought to my attention indirectly through the UK-HRD forum. They are both Adobe PDF documents that contain a huge range of advice on facilitating and running participative workshops. The first can be found at www.aidsmap.com/inthival/Participatory_Workshops.pdf and, bundled with this on the same website, are 100 energisers which and can be found at www.aidsmap.com/inthival/Energisers2002(English).pdf (If you haven’t got the Adobe PDF reader, you can download it from www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html).
The first link is a large document at 1.5 MB, so if you haven’t got broadband it may take some time to download. The document has been put together by the International HIV/AIDS Alliance and is really aimed at their workers and volunteers. The content is written in a virtually neutral style and can easily be contextualised into whatever production or service sector you may work in.
The document breaks down into three main sections: understanding participatory approaches to learning; facilitating a participatory workshop; and preparing and facilitating participatory workshops. Within the first section there are subsections answering two particular questions: ‘What are participatory approaches to learning?’ and ‘Why are participatory approaches used?’. The facilitation section covers techniques and answers two other key questions: ‘What makes a good workshop facilitator?’ and ‘What key skills do workshop facilitators need?’. The final section covers a range of topics including identifying the participants, selecting a facilitation team, working with the facilitation team, planning the content of a workshop, preparing for individual sessions, making up a workshop schedule, dealing with logistics and closing a workshop.
As you will see, even though the document is relatively short it covers a fair amount of ground and it does, I think, capture many of the essential factors about facilitating and leading a workshop. It is definitely worth accessing for someone new to this function and is certainly worth a look for the experienced individual, if only to review the content and perhaps remember what it’s all about and how to avoid falling into bad habits.
The second document, ‘100 Energisers’, is a great resource. Energisers are those little activities that you build into events in order to revitalise a group after doing some particularly arduous or demanding exercise. Alternatively, they can be used to wake everybody up following their gargantuan lunch in the staff canteen. Whatever the reason, there are plenty of ideas and suggestions here and they are all fresh, innovative and clearly described. In my opinion, this should reside on every trainer’s hard disk or ‘favourites’ list. I thought about calling this second half of ‘Netcheck’ ‘The slaying of the holy cows’. This is because we trainers negotiate around a whole herd of holy cows that in some quarters are treated as sacrosanct and, whenever they are challenged, cause much consternation and resentment. Well, this is like waving a red rag at my holy bull! So, what am I thinking about when I refer to holy cows? I mean concepts and models that may, when they were first uttered, have had some grain of truth, but since their inception have been so badly misquoted, changed and distorted that they now have very little content of any value. Quite often I believe these ‘theories’ are disseminated and multiplied quite innocently. If we are told something on a training course, we expect the trainer to know what they’re talking about, to have done the appropriate research, rather than just to repeat like a mindless tape recorder some item of ‘truth’ they heard a while back. Well, to help trainers, here are some web-based sources that throw light on many erroneous and false concepts.
The first holy cow I’ll tackle is open and closed questions. How often have you heard that during conversation if you want to elicit an open response use open questions and if you want to receive short, succinct answers use closed questions? Well, apparently the reality is somewhat different. There is some correlation between open and closed questions and brief and extended answers, but not as great as you would think. Read myth 4 at www.saleslobby.com/Mag/0603/FENR.asp and also have a look at www.ce.org/publications/vision/1998/julaug/pg28.asp?bc=dept&department_id=9
The second holy cow concerns left brain/right brain thinking. Trainers will frequently trot out the old chestnut that the left brain is more logical and sequentially driven while the right brain is more creative and holistic. There is only one word to describe this ‘theory’ and it is not suitable for polite company. In fact, there is a mass of data and research that supports the view that both the left and right brain work in unison and share responsibilities. A website that explores this issue in some detail is www.brainconnection.com/topics/?main=fa/drawing It also makes the observation that the concept may not be based on good science but it might be a useful analogy if used to explore thinking styles, provided it is made clear that it is only an analogy. The next website is even more damning of this puerile concept and is www.rense.com/general2/rb.htm It concludes by advising that naive left and right brain divisions are simply not correct.
Holy cow number three is that 55 per cent of all communication is non-verbal. This one is indeed a classic misquotation. The origin of this claim is based on the work of Professor Albert Mehrabian who published a book called Silent Messages. In it Mehrabian does indeed claim that 55 per cent of communication can be non-verbal, but only in very specific circumstances, namely when words, tone and non-verbal messages are inconsistent. So, we may say one thing but our bodies imply another (for example, saying ‘yes’ but shaking our head from side to side provides an inconsistent message). In these circumstances, the 55 per cent guide kicks in. However, it does not apply when the message is consistent. Two websites that explore this issue are www.linguistlist.org/issues/12/12-1332.html and www.neurosemantics.com/Articles/Non-Verbal_Communication.htm
The fourth holy cow concerns un-calibrated eye accessing cues. You will frequently come across advice stating that by simply watching the movements of individuals’ eyes you can tell if they are lying or telling the truth. Apparently, eyes looking up and to the right indicate reference to constructed images while eyes looking up and to the left indicate reference to recalled images, and so on. Well, for me personally, the whole concept of eye accessing cues is a load of drivel, but there are many people who believe it works for them. However, the issue of calibration is frequently omitted. The standard model to which I have alluded is not standard at all and, according to Neuro Linguistic Programming practitioners who think this model works, each person should in fact be calibrated on an individual basis. The following two websites explore this issue in greater depth: www.manifestation.com/neurotoys/calibrate.php3 and www.kinesic.com/interrogation_nlp.htm
And my final holy cow is fire walking. This is not so much a spoken concept, but more a delivered one. Fire walking has been promoted as evidence of how the human spirit can overcome the physical realities of our world. I’m afraid there are no words, polite or otherwise, to describe what a piece of rubbish this is. When people walk over hot wood embers this is not a remarkable feat of mind over matter but merely a demonstration of simple physics and the amazing gullibility of some people. These two websites explode this myth in its entirety: www.pitt.edu/~dwilley/fire.html and skepdic.com/firewalk.html
Well, I think that’s enough bloodshed for this month. Vegetarians and anyone of a sensitive nature, please accept my apologies.
Many thanks to Garry for this month’s invaluable contribution. Next month Clare Forrest returns with a rundown of her recent Internet findings.
Ratings
www.aidsmap.com/inthival/Participatory_Workshops.pdf and www.aidsmap.com/inthival/Energisers2002(English).pdf
Content *****
Originality ***
Navigability *****
Presentation and graphics ****
Downloads and freebies **
Links *
Quick hits
*****
More and more of our clients are looking to have mementos of their team-building event or to get a group photo of the course participants. Taking photographs with a digital camera means that you can tell almost instantly if you’ve got ‘the shot’ and didn’t cut the head off the managing director. However, digital cameras don’t solve the problem of circulating the photographs to the participants after the event. Well, now there’s an interesting service called Webshots that allows you to upload your digital photographs to a website (no website design skill required at all) and then circulate the address to participants so that they can access, review and download whichever pictures they choose. It’s an extra, value-added service that clients like and this photographic hosting site fits the bill perfectly.
www.freetranslation.com/web.htm
****
Ever gone to a referenced website only to discover it’s written in a foreign language that you can’t read? Well, by taking the URL of the foreign language website, entering the address on to this web page and selecting the suitable translation option it will take the text and covert it to English. The conversions are frequently weird and strange, but not to the extent that you can’t tell what it means.
This month’s ‘Netcheck’ is compiled by Garry Platt, a senior consultant at the Woodland Grange Management Centre in Leamington Spa, where he plays a key role in the Centre’s provision of ongoing management training and development across the public and private sectors. If you think this edition of ‘Netcheck’ is good, bad, ugly or simply an affront to 10,000 years of human progress, do let Garry know at garry.platt@wgrange.com
Readers Comment
Be the first to comment on this news story
Articles from this Issue
- Learning: 12 reasons to make it a priority
- Trainers as project managers: a new world?
- International opinion
- Using delegation as a development tool: methods and benefits
- ;Spotlight' on Susan Pember
- True or false? 11 myths about coaching
- Case Study - Minding the gap: e-learning and the 'forgotten learners'
- Netcheck
- And now for your projects