I recently completed two separate training classes that were unique
(to me) -- they were conducted in a hotel meeting room with
drop-shipped computers. I had to (got to) set up the room however I
wanted. Here are a few observations from those trainig sesssions
regarding table configuration.
In both sessions, I set up the computers on 3x5 foot tables against
the side and back walls. I set up separate tables for the students.
These were the shallow tables (2x5 or 1.5x5?). In effect, there was
one set of tables for the lecture and a completely different set of
tables for the lab. I liked it. It worked well. Most noticably, I
had great face-to-face time with the students. They couldn't hide or
be hidden by the monitors on their desks. Nor could they get
distracted by the computers. Although these computers were not
networked, I find that folks often get distracted by stock quotes,
email, etc. Out of sight, out of mind. The interaction appeared to
be more focused. I certainly had a better time reading their faces to
see how well they were "getting it". And even though the tables were
shallow, they had more room for the course material and their note
books since the computers weren't in the way.
For the second class, I played a bit more and formed the student
tables into a U shape. This had the benefit of allowing all students
to see all other students' faces. In effect, I gave all the students
the benefit that I had gotten from better face-to-face rapport. There
were 7 students in the open enrollment class from 3 separate
companies. Without this openness and face-to-face configuration, I
would have had to deal with 3 separate mini-classes within one big
class. The isolation would have been a barrier. Having me be in the
center (not just up front) of this U shape was a bit awkward at first,
but the intimacy that it created opened up interactive discussions in
a way that 3-4 parallel rows would not have allowed. I think that
students opened up more to me, and to each other. In a multi-row
situation, there is no student-to-student face time. There is only
teacher-student face time. This added dimension opened up the
discussions between students, and allowed us all to communicate in a
way that is stifled in a multi row configuration. Of course this is a
two edged sword. Intimacy and open communication could get out of
hand if the instructor doesn't hold the focus. It's also a tool that
can be used to control the students. But I'm not much into
(overbearing) control (at least at this point of my development as a
trainer). I'm quite often a back-seat driver in my classes,
preferring to let the students drive when they're interested. Of
course, I'll be a tour director whether I'm in the back seat _or_ the
driver seat. I used to need the control offered by limiting student
interaction more when I was less confident of my facilitation
abilities. My style now leads itself more to being interrupted by a
question, opening it up for joint discussion/discovery, the filling in
the pieces that didn't get covered in the group discussion.
Of course, if you are teaching in a room that's already
configured/wired, reconfiguring it isn't always possible. But I have
reconfigured other training rooms at corporate on-site training
courses, too. That's what the extra hour is for before the first
day's class. As a trainer, I remove obstacles to learning. Sometimes
that means moving a lot of monitoring the furniture and moving the
monitors.
What's experiences and lessons have you had with room configurations?
--
Michael R. Wolf
All mammals learn by playing!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
