They say: "Trying is not torture." But what if there are 70 of them? A first-grader makes about 200 attempts on average before learning to write the first letter correctly three times in a row. There are more than 2000 attempts for all letters. For most, writing skills remain unstable, letters dance in different ways for each.
Let's imagine that something similar happens in an organization when preparing interns for work in mass specialties. Who is to blame for such a result: the mentor, the student, or HR makes mistakes when selecting personnel? The answer lies in the quality of the mentors' training.
The mentor throws up his hands: "Nobody taught me. I figured it all out on my own. And here there is no desire, no aspiration. What can I do for you?" How many unsuccessful attempts must the trainee make before the verdict is passed - he is "incapable, he has no motivation"?
Failures, discouraged hands, dull eyes, irritability of the trainee are the result of mistakes in practicing skills. Where the training process is well-established in mass specialties, there are much fewer problems with skills and motivation.
When I tell mentors that about 80% of young specialists want to achieve results and strive to develop the relevant skills, they look at me with great surprise. “No, we don’t do it that way,” is the answer I hear.
Most people understand that success at work is a guarantee of reward, recognition, a condition for professional development and career growth, conflict-free communication with colleagues and management.
100% of employees do not want:
The number of attempts a trainee makes before mastering a skill is crucial in training. This marker first shows how experienced the mentor is, then how successful the trainee is.
Many experienced specialists have become successful due to their high abilities for this work and their desire for independence. They expect the same from interns. However, for mass specialties, the approach "Who needs it, will learn" is unacceptable. Especially for those who work on a rotational basis. This is not how labor productivity in a company is increased.
All employees have different levels of readiness for training. Therefore, the speed of mastering new experience and the strength of knowledge are also different. Our experience shows that if the mentor knows how to structure the development of skills, individual differences between trainees become insignificant.
When I show how to teach computer skills at a training (not in IT companies), I randomly select a participant from the group. I often hear: "You made a mistake. I will definitely fail your experiment." I say that I will show a sequence of 200 mouse clicks and the participant will reproduce it on the first or second try. And that's what happens every time.
With proper skill development, people will generally succeed. And if the trainee fails, you need to be very sure that the problem is not in the mentor, but in the student. This is also possible, but these are isolated cases - a selection error.
There are people with suitable experience, with abilities for a specific or similar activity. They learn to do the job quickly, with a high degree of independence. This does not mean that others, with average or even lower abilities, will not be able to do it. They just need to be taught - this is the meaning of mentoring.
An experienced specialist can effectively transfer experience to everyone hired, but only if he has been taught this. Ultimately, the responsibility for mentoring and the qualification index in the company is on HR. It determines what the program for developing didactic competencies will be. For the priorities of such a program, see our article here.
Why do people make many attempts?
Each attempt is a repetition of the action being worked on. Repetitions are necessary. This is how we learn and remember new experiences. If a person makes many attempts or refuses to learn at all, then most likely he still has not understood how to do the work. He got stuck at the stage of researching work operations, panicked, and became disappointed.
A paradox arises. The mentor is nearby, showing, prompting, and the student gains experience through experimentation.
If the trainee lacks information about the necessary operations, he repeats not to memorize, but to search for them involuntarily and unconsciously. He sort of gropes and accidentally discovers the necessary operations. And only then, through additional repetitions, do they become fixed in memory. Experiments can take a lot of time and not everyone has the patience. This demotivates the trainee and the mentor.
A young professional should not have random discoveries like: “So that’s how he does it!”
What is self-evident for a mentor is a black hole for a trainee. There is no place for "obvious" work operations in training; everything must be specific.
1. I'll tell you, you listen.
2. I'll show you, you look.
3. Let's do it together.
4. Do it yourself, I'll tell you.
5. Do it yourself, tell us what you did.
If a teacher uses this knowledge to teach children to write, will the number of attempts be reduced? Or maybe these approaches are only for teaching adults? Then why does mentoring stall, given such tools?
We cannot say that these concepts are wrong. It is just that each of them is a bullet - a container in which the mentor's non-obvious actions are hidden. The simplified scheme of action given at the training is then reproduced by the mentor in the same way when working with "newbies".
Therefore, when teachers make mistakes in teaching, they cannot be blamed for this. After all, they follow the 5 stages. But the whole point is WHAT they tell, HOW they show. The teacher also writes letters on the board, and the child reproduces them in his notebook with mistakes.
In 1957, under the guidance of our psychologist Petr Yakovlevich Galperin, the process of teaching writing was changed. In an experimental group of 5 people, on average, the children spent 14 attempts on the first letter. Starting with the 11th letter, the children wrote independently on the first try.
No one motivated the students specifically. You see, such a process motivates in itself, because it works. By the way, at the time of this experiment, D. Kolb was 13 years old.
In 1998-2001 we repeated the experience of our colleagues in preparing children for school. We got excellent results. Once a funny incident happened. After finishing his studies, one boy was tested for admission to an elite gymnasium. There he was asked to write a sentence in English using a sample. He had never written capital Latin letters, but he reproduced the phrase as if it were a carbon copy. The gymnasium psychologist was so surprised that she contacted us with interest. And this was an ordinary child, without any super abilities for drawing or writing.
Some figures from the experiment under the direction of P.Ya. Galperin are on our website.
Instead of the Kolb cycle and the "5 stages of mentoring", we adapted Galperin's approach to training mentors in business. We described in detail the competencies of a mentor in relation to the process of practicing skills. In accordance with this, we developed a training program. For comparison, you can see it on the website.
What makes our program different from others?
We don't read theories. We teach mentors to analyze their work process, create a matrix of work operations, an algorithm for practicing skills (this is not about D. Kolb's cycle at all), we find ways to reduce attempts, speed up the transfer of experience, etc.
For a period of time, we become mentors for experienced specialists in the company, accompany them, help them practice their skills. Mentors quickly get involved in the process because they immediately start acting, they do not have to think about how to attach the theory of training to their practice.
How can you quickly make sure that you have a working program in front of you? The best way is to develop the skill using the methodology live, here and now. For example, we do this in 12 minutes using this cube. First, we show how to teach how to assemble a puzzle cube in the traditional way. Then, our version. The difference is immediately obvious.
Total
When mentors learn the process of skill development, they themselves become involved in the process of improving their learning. Unless, of course, they think that they are raising their own competitors.
Source
Let's imagine that something similar happens in an organization when preparing interns for work in mass specialties. Who is to blame for such a result: the mentor, the student, or HR makes mistakes when selecting personnel? The answer lies in the quality of the mentors' training.
When working with interns, cause and effect are misunderstood
Learning, where there are many unsuccessful attempts, becomes an exhausting process. Most often, the reason for this is seen in the "incapable" student.The mentor throws up his hands: "Nobody taught me. I figured it all out on my own. And here there is no desire, no aspiration. What can I do for you?" How many unsuccessful attempts must the trainee make before the verdict is passed - he is "incapable, he has no motivation"?
Failures, discouraged hands, dull eyes, irritability of the trainee are the result of mistakes in practicing skills. Where the training process is well-established in mass specialties, there are much fewer problems with skills and motivation.
When I tell mentors that about 80% of young specialists want to achieve results and strive to develop the relevant skills, they look at me with great surprise. “No, we don’t do it that way,” is the answer I hear.
Most people understand that success at work is a guarantee of reward, recognition, a condition for professional development and career growth, conflict-free communication with colleagues and management.
100% of employees do not want:
- Spending an unreasonable amount of time and effort to achieve a result.
- Uncertainty of one’s achievements: “What if it doesn’t work out? I can’t do it?”
- It takes a long time to sort through the information provided and get answers.
- Feeling unsuccessful.
- Having a mentor with a bad character.
The number of attempts a trainee makes before mastering a skill is crucial in training. This marker first shows how experienced the mentor is, then how successful the trainee is.
Many experienced specialists have become successful due to their high abilities for this work and their desire for independence. They expect the same from interns. However, for mass specialties, the approach "Who needs it, will learn" is unacceptable. Especially for those who work on a rotational basis. This is not how labor productivity in a company is increased.
Mentoring bridges the gap between people with different abilities
It is clear that high-quality personnel selection is needed. Selection errors are inevitable, but these are rare cases.All employees have different levels of readiness for training. Therefore, the speed of mastering new experience and the strength of knowledge are also different. Our experience shows that if the mentor knows how to structure the development of skills, individual differences between trainees become insignificant.
When I show how to teach computer skills at a training (not in IT companies), I randomly select a participant from the group. I often hear: "You made a mistake. I will definitely fail your experiment." I say that I will show a sequence of 200 mouse clicks and the participant will reproduce it on the first or second try. And that's what happens every time.
With proper skill development, people will generally succeed. And if the trainee fails, you need to be very sure that the problem is not in the mentor, but in the student. This is also possible, but these are isolated cases - a selection error.
There are people with suitable experience, with abilities for a specific or similar activity. They learn to do the job quickly, with a high degree of independence. This does not mean that others, with average or even lower abilities, will not be able to do it. They just need to be taught - this is the meaning of mentoring.
An experienced specialist can effectively transfer experience to everyone hired, but only if he has been taught this. Ultimately, the responsibility for mentoring and the qualification index in the company is on HR. It determines what the program for developing didactic competencies will be. For the priorities of such a program, see our article here.
Why do people make many attempts?
Each attempt is a repetition of the action being worked on. Repetitions are necessary. This is how we learn and remember new experiences. If a person makes many attempts or refuses to learn at all, then most likely he still has not understood how to do the work. He got stuck at the stage of researching work operations, panicked, and became disappointed.
A paradox arises. The mentor is nearby, showing, prompting, and the student gains experience through experimentation.
If the trainee lacks information about the necessary operations, he repeats not to memorize, but to search for them involuntarily and unconsciously. He sort of gropes and accidentally discovers the necessary operations. And only then, through additional repetitions, do they become fixed in memory. Experiments can take a lot of time and not everyone has the patience. This demotivates the trainee and the mentor.
A young professional should not have random discoveries like: “So that’s how he does it!”
What is self-evident for a mentor is a black hole for a trainee. There is no place for "obvious" work operations in training; everything must be specific.
What do mentors know about the skill development process?
Any training, article on the Internet, dedicated to mentoring, talks about the training cycle of D. Kolb and 5 stages of mentoring (5 stages of training / technique of skill formation):1. I'll tell you, you listen.
2. I'll show you, you look.
3. Let's do it together.
4. Do it yourself, I'll tell you.
5. Do it yourself, tell us what you did.
If a teacher uses this knowledge to teach children to write, will the number of attempts be reduced? Or maybe these approaches are only for teaching adults? Then why does mentoring stall, given such tools?
We cannot say that these concepts are wrong. It is just that each of them is a bullet - a container in which the mentor's non-obvious actions are hidden. The simplified scheme of action given at the training is then reproduced by the mentor in the same way when working with "newbies".
Therefore, when teachers make mistakes in teaching, they cannot be blamed for this. After all, they follow the 5 stages. But the whole point is WHAT they tell, HOW they show. The teacher also writes letters on the board, and the child reproduces them in his notebook with mistakes.
In 1957, under the guidance of our psychologist Petr Yakovlevich Galperin, the process of teaching writing was changed. In an experimental group of 5 people, on average, the children spent 14 attempts on the first letter. Starting with the 11th letter, the children wrote independently on the first try.
No one motivated the students specifically. You see, such a process motivates in itself, because it works. By the way, at the time of this experiment, D. Kolb was 13 years old.
In 1998-2001 we repeated the experience of our colleagues in preparing children for school. We got excellent results. Once a funny incident happened. After finishing his studies, one boy was tested for admission to an elite gymnasium. There he was asked to write a sentence in English using a sample. He had never written capital Latin letters, but he reproduced the phrase as if it were a carbon copy. The gymnasium psychologist was so surprised that she contacted us with interest. And this was an ordinary child, without any super abilities for drawing or writing.
Some figures from the experiment under the direction of P.Ya. Galperin are on our website.
What to teach mentors?
Training is not effective when the mentor is forced to translate theoretical knowledge into practice. You need to teach not concepts, but specific working actions that can be applied in your work.Instead of the Kolb cycle and the "5 stages of mentoring", we adapted Galperin's approach to training mentors in business. We described in detail the competencies of a mentor in relation to the process of practicing skills. In accordance with this, we developed a training program. For comparison, you can see it on the website.
What makes our program different from others?
We don't read theories. We teach mentors to analyze their work process, create a matrix of work operations, an algorithm for practicing skills (this is not about D. Kolb's cycle at all), we find ways to reduce attempts, speed up the transfer of experience, etc.
For a period of time, we become mentors for experienced specialists in the company, accompany them, help them practice their skills. Mentors quickly get involved in the process because they immediately start acting, they do not have to think about how to attach the theory of training to their practice.
How can you quickly make sure that you have a working program in front of you? The best way is to develop the skill using the methodology live, here and now. For example, we do this in 12 minutes using this cube. First, we show how to teach how to assemble a puzzle cube in the traditional way. Then, our version. The difference is immediately obvious.
Total
- Determine what initial level of skills, abilities, and competencies are required to master the mass specialty for which you are looking for candidates.
- When selecting candidates during interviews, study the candidates' past experience. Average abilities - average achievements. With proper mentoring, there is a high probability that the person will master the proposed work.
- If the apprentice studies for a long time or leaves the company altogether, then examine how the mentor trains the interns. Does he understand the reasons for the failures in the apprentice's training, does he reduce everything to the lack of motivation or to some abstract abilities.
- Set a goal to reduce the number of attempts when learning. Study the process of skill development, find places where it can be improved. Consult with those for whom learning is not only the D. Kolb cycle.
- Check how well mentors can explain the work process, the sequence of operations. Do they understand the difference between obvious and specific, are they able to give feedback? How do they apply D. Kolb's learning cycle and "5 stages of mentoring" in their work, if they were trained in this?
When mentors learn the process of skill development, they themselves become involved in the process of improving their learning. Unless, of course, they think that they are raising their own competitors.
Source
