In this day and age of learning, creating motivating and engaging events I believe there is a place for both capabilities. I noticed I shifted inside when I started to facilitate. I learnt to trust the process I had designed.
I listened to my intuition, the signals I received from the energy in the room to move the group. One of my biggest surprises was that I had to hold the outcomes lightly. No longer could I grasp these tightly in my hand and say this is what will happen. I have learnt to craft the sessions outcomes, use them as a guide and then let them go to hover in the space as the facilitated session unfolds. Here are my thoughts about some of the skills, behaviours and beliefs for a facilitator :. I think there are common skills, behaviours and beliefs that both roles share.
They are more like school administrators. Whereas, training professionals are instructors. They are more like teachers. ISD professionals, at least in the corporate world, are usually paid more. I'd like to know your thoughts.
ISD professionals are like architects, but most use a pretty standard approach to how they build their houses. They do NOT have to be content experts.
Because they are not, they must spend a lot of time gathering information from subject matter experts and other stakeholders so that they can build a relevant training. Most trainers don't have a clue how to design a training effectively.
That's a HUGE missing link. If they knew more, they'd be better trainers. This is a great article outlining the differences between a facilitator and a trainer. I always refer to myself as the facilitator because I facilitate the process that they need to evolve, create new habits, and make better choices that will support them in the workplace.
Name required. Mail will not be published required. The training provides theory, information and activities to share and help retain the information. The main difference is in almost simplistic terms: training is about learning and facilitation is about thinking. The second big difference is that the trainer has to offer quite a bit of content in large or small blocks. So, the emphasis is on a hierarchical model where the trainer is the teacher and the learner is the student.
The facilitator model is based on collaboration. It is a group of peers who have come together whom themselves have the content. They need a structure to think through the information they have in a way that will result in something new and different. The facilitator provides the tools, fabric, flow, calm, presence and energy to guide the group.
The third is that the trainer is helping the group to apply the content he or she has given them. So the training would ideally contain a lot of demonstrating, practising, and reinforcing of the concepts that have been shared. In the facilitator model, the emphasis is more on communicating.
It is about helping team members share their data points, experiences, understand one another, build the cohesiveness of ideas and find ways to solve problems, including the introduction of new models and concepts.
The final difference between the trainer and the facilitator is that the trainer is focused on achieving a longer-term outcome.
They know that one day or two days or even five days of training is not going to have an immediate impact necessarily. The concepts must be continually reinforced, practised, refined for each situation. If this is done well, in the long term, you will see some change. The facilitator provides the tools, structure, flow, calm, presence and energy to guide the group. The third is that the trainer is really helping the group to apply the content he or she has given them.
So the training would ideally contain a lot of demonstrating, practicing, and reinforcing of the concepts that have been shared. In the facilitator model the emphasis is more on communicating. It is about helping team members share their data points, understand one another, build cohesiveness of ideas and find ways to solve problems.
It is not the role of the facilitator to reinforce any concepts. The forth difference is in the design. You decide what the learning outcomes are, you design your activities and content accordingly.
It works well! In contrast, the facilitator always has to have a flexible agenda. They simply cannot predict what is going to happen as a result of a tool being used that changes where the group may need to go or decides to go. No matter how much you interview beforehand and how you do your research, your job as the process facilitator is always to remain adaptable.
You are changing and adapting in the moment. You are helping the group do some complex weaving of their thinking. The final difference between the trainer and the facilitator I feel, is that the trainer is really focused on achieving a longer-term outcome.
They know that one day or two days or even five days of training is not going to necessarily have an immediate impact. The concepts have to be continually reinforced, practiced, refined for each situation. If this is done well, in the long term, you will see some change. However, when the person and or the organization does not do anything to reinforce the concepts, then all that is taught is lost!
The facilitator has more of an emphasis on the short term. The result may be e. The result could simply be a profound discussion with your colleagues about something that needs to change.
When you were doing planning, although the result is an immediate documented plan, it may take a number of years to implement.
0コメント