In contrast, during a course tailor-made for a customer, no PowerPoint files were produced.
The participants worked intensively as a team; they were challenged and really engaged in the action. They had to do, during the course, what was expected of them in the workplace.
► They liked it, because they could see the interest, relevance and, above all, the added value of this training activity. One participant's comment was eloquent: why aren't all our other courses done this way?
A good question. Why do we insist on using slides as if they were a panacea for all ills? In the end, the answer is quite simple: because most courses are designed by experts, full of good intentions, but with no expertise in andragogy (teaching adults), or even pedagogy (general basic principles).
As a result, their courses reveal several shortcomings. Here are just a few of them:
Gap #1: The belief that clear explanation leads to learning
These experts sincerely believe that clearly substantiated content is enough to generate understanding, interest and retention. In the 1960s, Jean Piaget developed a theory of learning that is now confirmed by neuroscience: knowledge belongs to a given brain, and the trainer who explains only gives information (not knowledge). The participant's brain must rework this information with sufficient effort and energy to encode it and include it among its own knowledge. It's thanks to new biochemical links between our neurons that we can add new knowledge; it takes quite an effort to modify links or to create new ones.
► To learn, we have to manipulate information from experts, work with it, confront it, jostle it to ultimately create our own knowledge.
And it's not by listening to an expert that this will happen... Driving schools have understood this well: the learner must be installed behind the wheel and responsible for his actions and decisions! You can learn the Highway Code from a book, but not how to drive.
Gap #2: Selecting relevant knowledge
Knowledge selection is another important point. Which knowledge to choose? Most experts think around declarative knowledge (notions, concepts) whereas participants need procedural knowledge (to carry out tasks) and strategic knowledge (to make decisions).
► In other words, experts' hindsight on their content is detrimental to them and leads them to choose theoretical knowledge, whereas participants need operational knowledge above all.
So we're not teaching the right knowledge. It's a bit like saying I need to know how to calculate the surface area of a floor, and they teach me what a surface area is!
Gap #3: Organizing knowledge
In the expert's mind, knowledge is organized from a "know-it-all" perspective, and it's often for this reason that their first attempt at organization takes the form of a table of contents. But the path of the knower is not the path of the learner...
► So we need to organize content differently, and focus our choices on the task at hand and on how to make the best decisions.
Gap #4: The quantity of knowledge
What about the amount of knowledge covered? Have you ever seen a course that lacks substance? A course that allows time for reflection, discussion, evaluation and reflection? Rarely will an expert course offer this luxury.
► Knowledge is crammed in without worrying about what will be rejected.
Do you know that in such circumstances, the brain is bound to prune, and you'll have no control over what knowledge will settle in and what will fade away! Often, we'll even retain an anecdote because it's interesting, to the detriment of knowledge deemed essential by the expert. The more information you present, the greater the risk.
Gap #5: Choosing the right pedagogical posture
Most expert trainers have been exposed to a single teaching model: university lectures. They adopt this transmissive posture and advocate a deductive mode of transmission: I teach clearly and then propose exercises. Unfortunately, such an approach is quite the opposite of what stimulates our brains.
► The brain likes to solve problems (which is quite different from doing exercises), enjoys being challenged and loves to discover for itself.
Gap #6: Fear of mistakes
The trainer fears that learners will make mistakes and will do everything to prevent this from happening. He'll anticipate pitfalls, warn participants, mark out the learning path to avoid pitfalls.
► Yet neuroscience experiments show that we learn much more from our mistakes than from our successes.
And that's normal - our brains have been programmed that way since the dawn of time. By being over-protective, the trainer reduces the opportunities for discovery and hinders learning. As long as there are no health and safety issues at stake, participants should be allowed to live through their mistakes.
Gap #7: Teaching materials
Given the previous choice of a transmissive mode, what could be more logical than making slides in PowerPoint! After all, it's so much more practical and attractive than working with a blackboard, isn't it? Do you know the origin of the name PowerPoint? A tool for powerfully making your point at... a conference! It's a far cry from learning, where the participant has tools, colleagues and time to build his or her knowledge.
► From my point of view, PowerPoint and its friends (Prezi, KeyNote. etc.) are serious nuisances to learning.
Because of them, information is spread out, too much is put on, and the participant never has time to work, to create his or her knowledge. Remember: you can't listen and think at the same time! The choice is yours...
In conclusion
Teaching doesn't mean scaffolding information, but rather imagining a complex situation, a challenge that participants will have to face, preferably in teams, with quality time to build knowledge. Teaching is really about guiding and letting learn!
And to answer the initial question: no, PowerPoint is not my teaching friend, because it automatically puts me in magisterial mode, and that's a posture I refuse to adopt!
To find out more :
Educational Approach: Creating Engaging and Effective Trainings
