Martin Thompson Adding value: the facilitator’s objective and criteria for success.
Articles and latest news. Includes white papers by MTa Learning and academic research on MTa training materials.
Adding value: the facilitator’s objective and criteria for success.
Consider these situations:
Situation 1
If a group I’ve been facilitating meets its objective I’m likely to feel positive about the experience and might reasonably claim to have met my objective, but should I? Perhaps the group would have achieved its objective just as effectively without me, or worse, from my perspective, I might have hindered their progress.
The question I need to ask myself here is have I added value, and if so how much and how?
Situation 2
This is the opposite of situation ‘1’, i.e. ‘is it possible for a facilitator to achieve their objective and at the same time for the group to fail to complete the task in hand?’
Surely if a group ‘fails’ the facilitator has failed: the facilitator has a key role within the group, therefore unless the group succeeds the facilitator can’t succeed.
The flaw in this analysis is that the facilitator is not a member of the group, the facilitator provides a service to the group, so the facilitator’s success is not dependent on the groups success.
So what should be the facilitator’s objective? There are two complementary facets:
- To enable every group member to make the most of themselves and their potential contribution to the group.
- For the group’s members to make the most of each other’s potential within the context of the group’s objective.
So how should the facilitator measure their success?
1. Consider each individual: did everyone appear to be willing and able to both contribute fully to the group and listen to and value others’ contributions?
2. Consider the group as a whole: did the group work effectively towards their objective and was the atmosphere conducive to effective team working?
If the answer is ‘yes’ to all aspects of these questions (no matter what the outcome of the meeting) then the facilitator met their objectives, even if they said nothing!
Comments
Hi Sandy,
Thanks for your thoughtful and informative reply.
It appears to me that your note supplements my email. I was unaware of the VET framework (although MTa supplies learning materials to Australia I have not worked there for many years). I was therefore unaware of this new regulatory body but I fully support their concept of client focused development. As you state, one consequence of client focus is that the trainee has to be ready, willing and able to learn from the programme that they wish to attend, as if they are not, the development will not reach expectations with consequent negative repercussions for everyone involved.
In my note I was writing specifically about facilitation as a process, which is beneficial in many situations as well as training environments. As I understand it facilitation is one of the many skill sets required by trainers. In the controlled environment that you mention it is apparent that the trainer covers set material which is likely to require a blend of different 'trainers skill-sets', but most importantly a trainers attitude which puts client focus at the centre of everything they do.
Best wishes,
Martin
Hi Martin
I found your comments interesting and by and large agree with them.
However, if we are talking about accredited training, then a facilitator should be expected to achieve success in a group’s learning outcome, in relation to all 3 domains of learning.
The reason I say this is that part of the requirement is Training Needs Analysis. If a trainee has been enrolled in something which is beyond their abilities, the RTO has failed to analyse their training needs effectively.
Under the AQTF (now VET quality framework) it is a key requirement that training and assessment should be client focused and flexible. The trainee should not be disadvantaged. A lot of people believe that the requirements under access and equity mean that anyone and everyone should be allowed to attend any training they choose. This is not the case. The trainee is disadvantaged when they are allowed to undertake training which is beyond their abilities. This leads to a lack of self-esteem and a sense of failure.
Therefore I see the role of facilitator does not begin inside the training room. It begins with the enrolment.
I do agree completely that a facilitator can be successful even when they do not say anything (or hardly anything). In fact, the more you speak the more facilitation turns into “presentation” and we should be aware that a presentation may provide information or may persuade/motivate but will never achieve a cognitive outcome, because the participants need to interact, speak and do in order to achieve cognition.
Regards
Sandy