This is my critical incidence analysis of an experience I had as a 'student'.
This past week (29th Feb - 3rd March) I had a 'student' experience. I was attending a 4 day workshop of which I spent most of the time seated and listening to the presenters. The workshop focused on use of data analysis. It required the use of data analysis softwares such as Stata, SPSS, EViews and NVIVO. We had 6 facilitators and about 40 participants, a majority were not conversant with statistics but I could tell some were also good in statistics and in particular data analysis. They were therefore attending the workshop as a refresher course.
My interest was on the presenters since I realized I could learn more on how my students feel while I facilitating my lessons. For purpose of privacy and confidentiality I will code them 1,2,3,4,a,b where 1,2,3, and 4 were the male presenters and a and b were the female presenters.
The first presenter 1 was good and took us through in such a way you could see he was enthusiastic about his work and he was really interested in the participants getting the concepts. Presenter 2 was equally good and tried to humour us though his humour bordered on gender stereotypes and other stale stereotypes but he was really interested in people understanding the key concepts and would stop until everybody was at par.
Day 2 saw the entry of presenter 3. He was knowledgeable but forgot that most participants were interested in skills. I forgot to mentioned that the presenters were being assisted by 3 technical people. These were assisting the participants when they got stuck using the softwares. It was during this presenter 3 that the technicians became more active since the presenter was losing most of the participants, I released that he was not communicating to all of us. He was not at the same space with the participants. He forgot that the theory part of data analysis may not make much sense at the moment. Since the theory though crucial made some participants feel discourage and disoriented. Presenter 3 tried to rectify this in later presentations. I also noted that presenter 2 who was also present, noted that presenter 3 was not communicating to the participants and he could interject in for clarifications.
Day 2 saw presenter 4 coming in. He was like a fish in water. He was, to me, a good teacher. Knows his students very well. Knew the right pace and the right approach.I gave him an A. unfortunately he had the least time allocated for presentation.
Day 3 saw presenter 3 coming back. I noted that he had improved a lot in communicating to the participants. His speed was also reduced to the right level to allow feedback from participants and the technicians had an easier time and were not hoping from one participants to another. The day also saw the coming back of presenter 2.
Day 4 saw the entry of presenter a. I had arrived late but I could see the mood of the participants. They were detached. The presenter was barely audible though she looked like she was well conversant with the data tool that she was trying very hard to explain how it is used. To make matters worse for her, the tool had not been installed in most of the participants' computers and for those who had it, they needed the internet to activate which was down at the moment. Again her computer did not have a port for an HDMI cable to connect it to the projector. So she had a rough time describing the procedures. Her explanations were frequently interrupted by technical questions from the participants who had to request her repeat a step or an explanation. The technicians were also extra busy hoping from one participant to another. You could see some frustrations in the faces of the technicians. they were overwhelmed. By tea break we had not done much and by the time her time was up we had eaten into the time allocated for the last presenter 'b' and we really didn't learn much. This presenter 'a' had well organized notes for the presentation but she had no plan B in case what she had planned earlier failed. She took time to borrow and transfer her data into a computer with the right port. she could also have only one example for illustration purpose and let the participants navigate the rest on their own. I suspected that she was using very sensitive data and hence didn't want to use another laptop or even share her data before the presentation. She also assumed wrongly that the participant were not well informed in methods of data analysis. This was a sign of pride. Which is wrong.
Day 4 also saw presenter 'b'. She was good and well organized and knew her job well. she presented in the best format so far. she was conversant with the task at hand. I think I learnt a lot from her presentation. It developed gradually and at the learners speed. She could start the process all over again in case she realized at least there is a person not following. She had planned well in advance. I liked her style. She engaged us well and I think this is the only presentation and contributed twice. She came down to the learners level and took the learners by hand and helped them cross the river, I gave her an A too.
I think I learnt a lot from this workshop more so on how to present myself as a facilitator. one, most people desire a simple example that they can work with easily. That though theory is important some details may be avoided and left for another day or group of participants. I also learned that moving with the speed of the learners and still keeping with the task at hand is important. prior planning is crucial. A need to have a plan B or even C is important just in case things don't go the way you intend. I also learnt it is good to go the learner's level and pick him or her and walk with him or her till they capture the concept, hopefully!
