3 Responses

1. ’tis niether just one thing or t’other

   IMHO a person 'running' a 'training event' needs to be able to switch back and forth between a range of different skills.  Similarly, a range of different approaches needs to be taken in the design of the event….for example.

   ~You may have a straight chalk-and-talk session on event groundrules and objectives

   ~You may then have a facilitated session for the delegates to identify the benefits of a particular technical process and the barriers to getting it right.

   ~You may have a another chalk-and-talk session on 'naming of parts' and the actual steps in the process; using cutaways, screenshots, videos or actual bits for people to handle depending on the topic. 

   ~You may then have an experiential session of practice where specific activities are carried out in slow time and where the 'trainer' acts as a technical advisor to assist individuals to get it right

   ~You then may have another facilitated session to analyse the methodologies and behaviours exhibited in the experiential session.

   ~Finally you may have a test to ensure retention of knowledge and demonstration of skill.

   ~After the event the trainer may either act as a technical consultant or run a follow up event to facilitate the sharing of good practice and problem solving.

   Whether the person concerned is titles a teacher, trainer, facilitator, Course Director or whatever is almost immaterial……

   I hope that helps

   Rus

   http://www.coach-and-courses.com

2. Rus is right!

   I agree 100% with what Russ has said. 

   I often work with technical trainers who spend a lot of their time telling and showing, but using the MASTER model I show them where and how they can make things more interactive to develop understanding and make the whole 'course' more experiential WITHOUT losing the control needed to say 'this is the right way'.

   Louise

   Power Hour Bite Size Training

3. Defining what people do

   I think Rus makes a relevant, and well described point about having the need for a 'mixed bag' of skills.

   My experience of working with various clients over the years is that no-one has a clear definition of what a trainer is or how to differentiate that for what a facilitator does. In some cases 'facilitators' will run the whole event, or might just open and close the sessions for various 'trainers'.

   However, as a rule of thumb,  I would say that a facilitator works from a guided text, and follows a prescribed set of instructions. They would need to have good communication and organisational skills, but wouldn't be the source of the learning. On the other hand, trainers are more likely to have created the learning from a position of expertise. So that, these subject matter experts are able to present solutions, best practices and answers for learners. If you look at it like that then, the following makes sense.

   Facilitators deliver training, Subject matter experts create training. 

   In your case I think you are referring to training professionals, that have studied how to make sense of the learning and are able to present, coordinate and guide learners through it. When looking for ways to jazz up training sessions, it's best to focus on what skills the facilitator can bring to the group.

   Bit long answer, but I hope that helps.

   Ian