moving beyond the workshop – blended training?. key questions what near term steps we can take to...

Moving Beyond the Workshop – Blended Training?

Key Questions

What near term steps we can take to improve current training models by bringing in more active learning to classroom-based instruction, or taking more practical learning to the field?

How can we adapt innovations for low resource settings?

Key Themes

Cascade training is going to be with us but if we think in broader terms of trying to improve performance, we can situate cascade training as one tool.

Much of our thinking on use of tools need to be directed as much towards the trainers as the people we wee as trainees

What happens after the training is critically important and more work is needed to engage the supervisors.

We want to create a culture of learning!

Next Steps

Focus on the key content instead of the “4,000 slides”Make field visits as a part of the trainingAt conception of training, focus on the content and

methodology as opposed to timeline and budgetEstablish metrics for what we expect to see in performance

and not just in pre- and post-testsCreate a core team of trainers who are trained on learning. Incorporate more Face-to-Face Training for the trainees

Comments/Notes

There are 3 things we need to consider• The steps and procedures we are training them in• The behavior changes we want to see• The guiding principles to do that

Getting active participation depends on who is training.• Everyone has a different STYLE of training• The same steps of 1, 2, and 3 are communicated in a different way—and you get a message very differently

In active participation (interactive participation), in the Dos and Don’ts, some standardized things (audio/visual packages that are standardized) can be used to deliver the message in a standard form.

People don’t have the necessary training skills• Do we give them the necessary skills to be better trainers?• Do we bring people in from “our side” to deliver it?

Materials don’t replace a good trainer. One approach is to create a core group of trainers and give them the necessary skills to deliver the

right knowledge in the right setting. If we can’t outsource it, giving the technical knowledge becomes more difficult. (Risk in those people leaving after being built up)

Comments/Notes (continued)

We don’t have a learning culture in most countries. The trainee must be willing (a personal development thing for them) Question: How do we, in our countries, try to build that learning culture? (It’s probably the most

difficult part of it) First, address the trainer part (because it’s easier), then address the training culture. How can we think beyond the standard cascade training? Where do the tools we heard about during the Summit fit in? (Even with cascade training, or

alternatives to the cascade Training) A mix of face-to-face and performance support is needed. In Nigeria, currently don’t have

performance support in place. Most times you do it face-to-face, train, administer a pre- and post-test, and score 100%. 1 week or 2 weeks later you ask questions and they can’t remember.

We need a way to encourage them and reward them for doing it well. Use something like acrobatiq. Upload the documents somewhere that the managers upload and

have a structure in place to do it on a monthly basis, quarterly basis, etc.


Also needs a certificate. Using the mobile academy training as an example. Quiz style questions they answer to motivate health workers.

No more PowerPoint It may require an investment to move away from PPT. How do we focus on the quality component? Rather than a pre- and post-test. We need trainers to have the ability to modify. There is a lot on standardization, but for the

trainer to tailor to his/her specific strengths. How can we focus on improving the quality of the trainer to impact continuous change? Take the active an adaptive learning and take that to the trainers on what they need to do to

improve for the next sessions. Need to improve training skills of the people labeled as trainers.


Think outside of the workshop as just the training session. Supervision after the training as a component. When training is design, ensure PS tools and follow up are included. Maybe have the supervisor involved in the development of the training. Do they understand it, do they value it? Are they implementing it? Why?

It takes pre-though related to the training design. The role of the supervisor is critical to what happens when the training is rolled out. Everyone can’t read. So a presentation doesn’t work. Developed a subject and set up questions as

a quiz. They answer and they discuss why right/wrong. One-hour session with nothing for them to read.

If they just pick people, train then and give them the skills, they can’t retain then. We have to have those people who are interested. That’s how to build the core group to provide better training.

Disagreement on having a core group of trainers. We should look at how do we deliver content and then go from there. The design of the program plus content may not be the best way to get what you want. If we know what motivates them and respond to that, and then make sure some bit of standardized content address that, that might be better than identifying the core group of who should be our trainers.


Pre- and post-tests are a poor way of measuring. People move on after. If the performance support, follow up delivered the training in pieces it would be helpful. Spread them out and make sure training doesn’t only happen in the classroom.

Best practices: Engaging supervisors, policy makers, etc. before hand and make sure there will be accountability and then start building the training.

We learned theory for learning that won’t change, but the reality is that the mechanism for learning is continually training. Let’s take pieces of it and apply.

At projecting health, realized that including them at conception makes them advocates more (not just the videos, but the concepts). If the trainers helped design the training, would it help with enthusiasm, excitement, etc.?

Let’s re-envision how we see ourselves as trainers. Let’s look at ourselves as performance expectation coaches so that we don’t see ourselves as people who create instructional materials or the opportunity for that to happen. Start thinking of the bigger picture.

If I need to use IVR and we’re introducing a new set of training videos and they are to use in between one home to another so they get what they need for the next home. How to encourage that performance? Reinvent ourselves and not being just trainers (it’s capacity development, which is the bigger picture).


If we envision things in the bigger way, we can better see our tools in the toolkit. Tactical steps: Content changes now: Change the slides when we get back (leverage prior knowledge, stories).

Do work on the current materials they use. Evaluate our training. What do people struggle with? We’ve been talking on the trainers. Now thing about the trainees. What is the thing that

motivates them? Do we incentivize them? Certification? Games and new learning initiatives. Training kits with boxes, puzzles to use. It has all the relevant

training materials. Even though there are tools, using the tools isn’t always happening. How do we get that?

We have a weak supervisor system. No mentorship so they go back to their old habits. To make it more practical we have a post-training after the training.

What people know and what they do are not necessarily the same thing. The “know do gap” is difficult to jump over.


Would it make a different if we looked at a policy framework that said, “No incentive for training, incentive for performance?” They don’t come alone. They come with their supervisor and team and then paid if their outcomes improved. And paid more than they would if they came to the training.

Penalize the trainers if performance doesn’t improve. The trainers are liberated to go to the clinic and see what they are doing.

Think of learning culture. Push a learning component. Get commitment to that as a concept as opposed to little pieces.

Have every facilitator simulate the process and see how they are going to deliver it. And at that point, have a check in place. Trainees also need to evaluate the facilitators.

Evaluate: Facilitation, participation, value of content of every topic. Look at the venue as well. Is it sufficient to create the environment for learning? Across countries, we technicians thing we are the best trainers, and we often aren’t. At the end of

the day we are just still technical people. Adopt something like acrobatiq where we can do small pieces. Something we can use ourselves.


If we use those tools, there is a management responsibility. Which tools to use and at what point? Low-resource setting: peer-to-peer training is a good option. Supervisors as on-the-job trainers. If there are funds to transfer the supervisor down to the

facilities. They can be trained as trainers. They can be given pedagogical skills and given the expectation that when you do a supervisory visit, training is a piece of what you should do.

What does a health worker do when they hit the point of confusion? We can elevate eLearning, etc. but when they are in the facility, what do they do? What are the communication channels?

Solution could be tapping into social media. Not a new app, but when they do training, they connect health workers in a given district and get them in a social network.

From the beginning, from the onset, don’t determine the budget and timing, but focus the origins and beginning/strategy on the content and methodology. If you start with budget/timeline, you may prohibit from the training that’s productive and only option being didactic.

moving beyond the workshop – blended training?. key questions what near term steps we can take to...

Documents