Over the last several months, I have been involved in developing the new Pathwright training Path for mentors. I want to share my observations on engaging the training modules within the Path more effectively.
First, for mentors seeking accreditation in the next year, I recommend starting the Path early and working in shorter blocks. I recommend setting aside several 30-45-minute blocks over several days to work on the modules within the Path rather than trying to complete the whole Path in one sitting. The modules have a lot of information, and this makes it difficult to complete during one continuous session. I believe working through the Path in multiple shorter sessions will increase your retention and reduce your fatigue.
Second, the modules are designed to take 2 to 4 hours to complete. However, many unknown variables will impact this time estimate. More experienced mentors will probably go through the Path faster since they are familiar with the information. How deeply one reads and engages with the material will also impact the time. Because of this, I recommend allowing a longer length of time to complete the Path to ensure that you have enough time to reflect upon the training information presented.
Finally, your trainer will read your shared reflections and use them to design the 16-hour in-person portion of the training. The more thoughtful your answers, the more helpful the training design will be. At the training in North Carolina, based on the responses I read, I added four aspects to my training design that I had never considered before. As the trainer, I felt these aspects helped me more directly respond to the needs of the participants in this training.
For trainers, I would first recommend setting aside a total of 20-minutes per participant to respond and take notes. I reviewed and responded in chunks after I received email notifications that a participant had engaged the Path. I spread my engagement across several days. This was intended as a way to be more engaged with the participants and hopefully start building relationships. I did have some participants respond to my responses, which helped me understand their positions and needs better.
Second, take notes as you read participant responses. I did not know to do this and later found it difficult to find specific responses in the system. Taking notes along the way would have helped me more efficiently use participant responses in my training design.
Finally, I did not provide a written response to all comments in the system. However, I did give at least a “heart” response to all of them. I only gave written responses to comments that I felt needed a response. Even without a lot of written responses, my participants reported feeling “heard” in the process.
Overall, this process improved the training experience for both the participants and myself. I look forward to continuing to use the system and seeing the creative ways others find to use it to improve our mentor training experiences.
For more information about changes in training, review the brief video introducing EfM's new approach to regional onsite and online training by mentor and trainer Jennifer Wickham and diocesan coordinator and online mentor Mary Novello.