Media training: triumphs or travesties? Experience from Southern Africa

1. Media training: triumphs or travesties?Experience from Southern Africa • by Guy Berger, • presentation to seminar: • “Impact indicators: making a difference” • Independent Journalism Centre, Chisinau, Moldova • 15 May 2003

2. Preview points • Stakeholders • Complexities • Principles • Priorities • Case study • Conclusion

3. Introduction: ideal logic • Constructing new societies •  • Media’s role in democracy •  • Strengthen through training

4. Get close up to stakeholders • Ideal vs reality • Journalists are not saints • Donors & media are industries • Training impact is unclear

5. Close up 1: Trainers’ interests • True or false? • “Trainers are pure altruists”

6. Who earns & who learns? • Choose the right answer - • Who gets the most benefit from training: • (a) trainer? • (b) trainee? • (c) employer? • (d) donor?

7. Close up 2: Donor drivers • King of the network • An industry as well • Has its own market fashions, flirtations & fluctuations • Needs hard results = deliverables req’d • But hard to measure.

8. Close up 3: employers • Some employers don’t want better journalists • Most don’t want to pay for training; some can’t • Fewer have a training strategy

9. Close up 4: Trainees • True or false? • Many are professional trainees in search of per diems

10. Once they’re trained, we pray they’ll stay • Hand-up = hand-out into PR industry/govt? • Does training lead to draining of talent? • Do we really make enough sustained impact from our training?

11. Close up: summing up • So, creating effective training is a hard-nosed business! • And there are different interests in impact assessment (IA): • trainers, • funders, • trainees, • employers

12. A complex business: • Creativity & chaos complicate cause-effect • Yet what works best - • Train on-site or not? • Centre vs periphery? • Language & culture? • Skill, talks & texts? • Journos as trainers?

13. More complexity: • Skills transfer, or is it growth? • Go for breadth, with many trained, or • Go for depth: train fewer, but better?

14. Is there a multiplier effect? • Do trainees bomb out back at the newsroom? Or is it: “each one, teach one”?

15. For training to fly ... • We need core principles about what makes for effective training. • We need to evaluate training in their light … if we want to assess impact (for stakeholders). • Training • principles ...

16. PRINCIPLE 1: Trainee- • Focus point: Learner-centred • So: set objectives in relation to: • needs analysis • baseline data • Then: measure success in terms of: • objectives, and • baseline data or trend analysis Note: objectives do not always = changes

17. PRINCIPLE 1: Trainer-trainee-employer • So: a triangle • of participants • “As the strength of a chain is determined by its weakest link, so the least contribution of any one partner becomes the maximum level of effectiveness possible”

18. PRINCIPLE 2: Ladder of learning • One-off and fragmented training experiences = resource waste • Develop an ongoing culture of learning • Give certificates for competence, not attendance

19. PRINCIPLE 3: proactivity • Serving the sector  a servant of the sector. • Providers should offer: • Needs-driven AND needs-arousing training. • Demand- AND supply- driven courses. • “Put the gain into train”

20. In one SA needs analysis of 14 radio stations, 13 failed to identify anyneed for: • journalism training, • skills in covering poverty • reporting local govt. • Only 3 said gender training. • None said training in media convergence. • Trainers must be leaders

21. PRINCIPLE 4: Process • No application within the newsroom  • Maybe: trainee didn’t learn much  • Cos poor delivery or good, but … • Poor course design  • Or: reason is - course wasn’t based on needs … • Training is a journey • - you can trace problems backwards

22. Process stages • If course did meet needs • Maybe the wrong people went on it • Or: the workplace blocks all  • Or:training not in fact the solution

23. Process lessons • Front-end work • is critical: • you can’t salvage a wrong course or wrong trainees. • Secrets of success can also be traced through preceding phases In short, evaluate at all stages! Pre-training, during, afterwards

24. PRINCIPLE 5: Holism Training target A: Head • Train the brain: • information • knowledge • intellectual skills

25. Training target B: Hands • Practice: • Skills to implement

26. Target C: Heart of the matter • If you forget about attitude, your training won’t fly. • (You can train for media freedom & ethics, for anti-sexism, diversity, anti-racism, etc.)

27. Target D: The Wallet • The point is: • What’s the pay-off? • Financial • Organisational • Job-related • Challenge: make a difference to the fulfillment of the clients’ missions

28. Holistic training • So, training should be planned and assessed in terms of: K nowledge A ttitude P ractice P ay-off

29. PRINCIPLE 6: RLAP • Reaction: do they like it? • Learning: are they learning it? • Application: are they using it? • Pay-off: does it make a difference?

30. Remember ... • Good reaction •  learning • Learning •  application • Application •  effective pay-off • It’s a package.

31. RLAP = indicators of kapp: • Reaction • ≡ Attitude • Learning • ≡ Knowledge • Application • ≡ Practice • Combination affects Pay-off

32. Recapping principles • Golden triangle: trainer, • trainee, employer • Ladder of learning • Proactive • Process • Holistic (kapp) • RLAP

33. At last: Impact Assessment

34. Priorities: what to select?

35. Evaluation: • Begin before the beginning of a course; • Continue after the end. • Remember reaction, learning, application, pay-off … at every stage. • Prioritise what to focus upon • Results: you’ll find out: • what works, • what needs work. • “It’s the training that did it”

36. Fly in the ointment… • How? • Evaluation & impact assessment takes • time, money (10%?), skill, follow-up • Needs to be against training objectives & baseline/trend analyis – BUT be open to unexpected findings • Don’t be dominated by findings • Beware being too training-centred.

37. Get to grips with HOW • Questionnaires • Focus groups • Observation • Testing • Other: • Output, awards, • promotions, • public opinion.

38. Case study: Southern Africa • Stakeholders: • NSJ • Funders • Me • Other trainers • A range of interests.

39. Principles @ work: • Research done .5 to 2.5 years after courses: • 12 courses 1996-97 • 374 individuals • 29% responses • Considerations: • Triangle • KAPP-RLAP • Proactivity • Process • Objectives & baseline

40. Case study: Southern Africa • Scoping: • Individual • Newsroom • Medium • Society • Method: • Questionnaires – 58 qtns • (incl asking for evidence) • Quantitative & qualitative

41. Indicators • Individual • Skills (LA), confidence (R), motivation (R) • Remuneration (A), position (A) • Perceptions of limitations (A) • Newsroom • Sharing of information (L) • Learning culture (R) • Society • Media freedom & independence (A) • Provoked ire (R)

42. Sampling needed: • Structured & representative: • Training rich/poor countries • Media free/restricted countries • NSJ activity concentrated • Potential markets & donor dependent • State and private media • Broadcast and print media • Male and female Total: 25 journalists (7%), 6 editors

43. Matrix of countries:

44. RLAP across scope:

45. Interesting findings: • 77% said performance increased from average to above-average 90% more motivated & confident Time elapse: longer = gtr impact

46. Pay-off findings: • Asked for value of training received: $25 – $500 a day! 30% promoted or pay increase – attributed to course (40% of men, 9% women)

47. “Triangle” findings: • Trainees rated improvement higher than their bosses did. • Trainees say they circulate training materials, bosses differ. 60% bosses value certificate; 20% of trainees value it.

48. Gender findings: • Guess who shares course materials – men … or women? • Significance: • To make impact, train more women. • To get more women, change duration of course.

49. Macro-findings: • More impact on: • training-poor countries, • public media. • Raised ire: • 40% private media • 25% of public • Newsroom conservatism as obstacle to application: • 75% public • 20% private

50. Unintended impact • A community of southern African journalists with a growing regional identity