June 24, 2012

Seminar in Review: June, 2012 – Chimoio, Mozambique (2)

[note: these seminar posts are being posted in reverse order to facilitate easier viewing on the site - this is part 2 of 3]


Point Two: Attendance

Given the radical schedule changes and the fact that our Mozambican associates really have never scheduled a seminar on their own before, our attendance was pretty much what we expected. Our first night saw around six people; over the next few days, we lost a couple of people and gained about four more. By the end of the first week, we were averaging six people a night. The second week, however, saw a decrease in attendance. Whether this was due to a certain amount of miscommunication about what to expect from the seminar or participant fatigue is hard to determine—I am planning on working with Leonard to follow up with the participants to investigate the details. In any case, by the end of the second week, we were down to three people.

While discouraging, this is not unexpected. The seminars are far more complex than many Mozambicans are used to, and it is not unusual for the stress of the material to cause some to give up. 
On the other hand, the miscommunication regarding expectations has been identified and we will be able to better communicate what the seminars are about next time. In Mozambique, many nonprofit organizations have taken to offering people food or money to attend their seminars. The offer is appreciated, of course, but it creates a situation where participants attend not to learn, but to earn.[i]  While this may sound like a nice way to provide poor nationals with money and allow them to learn, all it really does is set an expectation that “classes” equal “stuff.” Thus, seminars and other training are often valued for the prizes, not the education, provided. Once we clarified that our seminar was there to give people tools in the form of information, a few of them lost interest. Others, however, were excited to learn something they actually considered useful, and saw no need to have any other incentive.

Point Three: Participation

Of utmost importance in the seminar is participation by the attendees (which is why I usually call them participants). The seminars don’t just spit out information at the participants—it is important to us that people understand the principles we’re trying to communicate, and are able to apply them to their lives. As a result, the seminar is geared toward a lot of activities to reinforce our ideas. This is especially important in Africa, where most of the participants have never encountered these concepts before.

This, thankfully, was a great success. The participants were very engaged with what we were discussing (even those who were just there because they thought they would get food were interested and participating). There was a definite level of excitement in the group, and we noted not only a steadily increasing level of engagement from the remaining participants, but also an increasing level of excitement. Some of these activities and discussion are quite difficult and complex, and the participants were definitely rising to the challenge. This was exactly what we wanted, and we are extremely happy with the results.

Next Entry: Conclusions



[i] These same organizations often later wonder why there isn’t any long-term impact from their training. Here’s a tip for anyone who is interested in teaching people: if you have to pay people to attend your training, THEY ARE NOT THERE FOR YOUR TRAINING. People do not learn by infection—simply going to a training session does not guarantee participation or retention, and paying your students to attend will only get them in the seat. If anyone out there is considering or has been paying people to attend your training/seminar/workshop, please just stop (note: this does not apply to workforce training by businesses – if you want your employees to know something they don’t you should pay them to learn it). OK, footnote rant over.

No comments:

Post a Comment