In the third session, titled “One Person, Two Hats: Coaching SMEs to Facilitate Learning,” we explored the SME as wearing two hats: that of a content expert and that of a trainer. The speaker identified five types of SMEs: technical, functional (developers of video and learning content), sentinal (person paying the bills, stakeholder), instructional, and hybrid. For the purpose of the presentation, we focused on technical SMEs, or those that know and teach content for learners.
The two hats of a SME are very different. The content expert side focuses on data, details, personal experiences, and stories; while the trainer side emphasizes context, the big picture, is geared towards helping the audience learn, and works to connect the dots.
When we work with SMEs, we need to frame the orderly conversation. We provide the framework of introduction, content, then conclusion. In the introduction, we encourage them to identify the current situation; identify today’s goal; provide an agenda; and identify the take-aways of the day (what’s in it for me?). This framework was really helpful for me, and one that I will definitely take home as I work with faculty to develop online courses. I often struggle with coaching faculty to provide context to their learning… to introduce the concepts at hand and provide a learning path. They often want to jump right into teaching the “content” without considering the larger context. But with this framework, I feel like I can successfully coach SMEs into providing this context for learners.
The next step is to deliver content, whether that be story or demonstration. This content might include activities. If done right, activities are useful; but many times they are done wrong and are ultimately ineffective. For activities, we use the same outline (identify the current situation; identify today’s goal; provide an agenda, including directions, time allowed, and explanation of materials; and identify the take-aways of the activity). Debriefing an activity properly is also crucial. We must listen, hear from every group, be efficient without rushing, listen for nuance, and dig deeper when the opportunity presents itself.
The rest of the presentation involved assessing our default as trainers. We can either be a Writer or an Improviser. We took a 13-question self-assessment, and I identified myself as a Writer. Writers typically focus on developing a plan, feel there is never enough time to prepare, need structure and predictability, and are naturally thorough, careful, detailed, and accurate. On the other hand, improvisors focus on the people, delay preparation until the last minute, need to be spontaneous to be engaged, and are responsive and unafraid to make last minute changes. With these characteristics in mind, we can guide our coaching so that writers and improvisers can adapt to create better learning.