Kriengsak Niratpattanasai
A few months ago, I wrote about my experiences during a half-day workshop for fourth-year bachelor's degree students at a local university. My topic was international service, part of the school's International Business Management curriculum.
I had divided the class into small groups and asked them to compare the strengths, weaknesses and uniqueness of McDonald's and MK Restaurants, and of Thai Farmers Bank and Citibank.
For the first few minutes, the groups were almost silent; undergraduates are used to one-way lectures, not workshops. Finally I asked why they did not want to discuss things very freely. Among their comments: ``I have not learned the topic yet, so how can I answer?'' ``I'm afraid my answer in a group discussion will not be the `right' one. I will kai nah (lose face).'' ``I didn't want to show off too much among my peers. It's nice to be passive.'' ``I didn't want to look stupid among my peers.''
One remark _ ``I haven't learned it yet so how can I answer?'' _ is crucial when it comes to evaluating the Thai education system. We have not trained our students to think. The feeling that the student must give the ``right'' answer also limits our creativity.
I recently returned to the same university to discuss the same topic with a different group. This time I applied the lessons I had learned before. I changed my introduction radically as I realised it was imperative to outline clear expectations and benefits. The result was fantastic. Students had more participation and involvement. Here is what I did differently from the first session.
1. I told the students about the previous session and the hang-up on ``right'' answers. I told the new group that the exercise was not about right answers but about learning. We would learn how making a mistake in the class could prevent us from making a mistake in the workplace. I encouraged ``wrong'' answers. In fact, I had a gift _ a book I have just published on selling techniques _ ready for the person who supplied the most ``wrong'' answers.
2. I told them that I really believed I could help people learn. I said I would give my small fee to charity, and I would not come back if the class today did not participate. It was their responsibility as well as mine to make the class interesting. In a nutshell, I transferred the ``ownership'' of the success of learning to them.
3. I outlined the workshop format as I had in the earlier session, saying one goal was to help break the ice among students. By starting out in small groups first, students would feel more comfortable about discussing things when the full class of 30 reconvened. Increasingly in the modern workplace, I said, qualities such as the ability to speak out and even disagree were expected. Thai values such as kreng jai, sia na or mai pen rai could be obstacles to those expected qualities.
4. I checked their response by observing non-verbal behaviour. Those assigned to discuss banking appeared uncomfortable and I asked them why. They said they had little experience and knowledge about banking, unlike the fast food. I compromised by allowing all groups to discuss same case. This made them more sabai-jai (comfortable or relaxed). As an instructor, I have to be more open to their suggestions. Otherwise the students might not trust me and might be reluctant to propose any new ideas if they think I have a pre-set answer for everything.
5. I noticed more open discussion than in the previous class. After a few minutes, the class was noisy. I walked around and praised them for their good input. Whenever, the noise level went down, I told them: ``I want more noise, people. Louder!'' I acted like a musician egging on his audience.
It was an amazing class for me. I made a commitment to hold another session since the students had done a great job for me and for themselves.
- Kriengsak Niratpattanasai is head of training and development at a large joint-venture corporation. He has extensive working experience in cross-cultural environments. You can reach him at knirat
No comments:
Post a Comment