About a month ago, I co-facilitated a workshop at a training conference.  As most conferences tend to do this one included a luncheon keynote speaker. Having played this role on many occasions, I can say with authority that I am not a fan of luncheon speakers.

Here’s why.  Most planning committees so highly structure a conference that there is very little time to connect with colleagues, share ideas, and meet new people in the field.  Usually these opportunities are available at 15-minute breaks or at those god-awful cocktail receptions. As Open Space Technology creator Harrison Owen noted years ago, the most interesting conversations usually occur outside the formal setting of a conference.

At this particular conference, the luncheon speaker gave a presentation on why lectures are de facto “bad and that “good’ trainers use a variety of gimmicks to “keep people engaged under the assumption that engagement equals learning.  The reason for this approach is that according to the presenter, television, with its ten-minute segments in between 3 minutes of commercials has conditioned everyone to only tolerate short periods of information exchange.  While the speaker was clearly professional and passionate about this approach, you’ve probably guessed by my tone that I was a little annoyed by the content.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I am a member of the American Society of Training and Development, and have been doing instructional design and training for about thirty years.  I completely support the importance of keeping the training class engaged and maximizing learning.

At times this session seemed like a mix of an out-of-control auction and the behavior of frenzied commodity dealers on the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade.  I see this disturbing trend in training in which sizzle gets rewarded over substance and feel like the training community is selling it’s collective soul because it is afraid to make training challenging.  Why do we have to “dumb down workshops just because network television has dumbed down what it offers in a format that conditions people to short sound bites instead of a deeper dialogue.  What is missing is the opportunity to reflect, to go deeper, to really promote understanding. I think it is important to find ways to make these activities more accessible.   And what was missing from this keynote was the presence of any opportunity for exchanging points of view on when this anti-lecture approach is NOT the best one.  From where I was sitting I found it interesting that there were a significant number of people who were not engaged in the activities being suggested by the presenter.

I know this entry may irritate some of my colleagues as much as the content of the presentation (not the speaker) irritated me.  However, I feel a need to put a stake in the ground and invite others to do the same.  I am all for making learning enjoyable and enlivening.  However, I want to do it in a way that does not sacrifice substance and that has respect for the intelligence of the learners.