Although the number of attendees was small, I could count them on one hand. However, when I received feedback that the course was good but lacked promotion, I felt a sense of relief. If I had been pushed by tasks before, now it was time for me to take the initiative.
To avoid any delays with my flight, the sharing session was scheduled to start at 3 PM, lasting for two and a half hours. As the time approached, the number of attendees was still very few; even with the photographer and organizers included, there were not even 10 people.
However, I did not feel disappointed, as it was just a sharing session. For me, it was a rare opportunity to refine the course. I divided the entire sharing into three phases: the first phase lasted for 1 hour, focusing on supervision and motivation; the second phase lasted for 40 minutes, discussing the coaching part; and the third phase lasted for 30 minutes, involving action learning through the ORD after the learning.
In the first phase, I focused more on lecturing. Considering that everyone was from different units or organizations, it might be difficult to interact using a specific case, and since the number of attendees was already small, I decided to forgo some of the planned interactions.
Thus, I mainly discussed the content of the course, starting from the concept of supervision to the design of the top-level logic, the role and effects of supervision, and the specific methods that could be employed. Although I felt some difficulty with the motivation part, I still briefly explained some requirements and methods for motivation.
Unexpectedly, this part left a deep impression on everyone. For instance, during the final summary, one teacher expressed great interest in the presentation forms of supervision, which inspired him significantly. He elaborated on his understanding and insights using images, videos, documents, and tables, and emphasized how he would pay more attention to these in the future.
The second phase was a key part of my sharing—coaching! Of course, this part is also the focus of the entire course, but due to the small number of participants, the planned interactions could not be realized. I completed the sharing through explanations and examples.
This part mainly covered tools and methods, specifically two tools: PRM and GTSC, along with 10 methods for coaching. The content in this section was very rich, and afterward, the organizers praised me, feeling that I had generously shared valuable insights without holding back.
Due to the lack of practical exercises, even though I provided a lot of content, it still felt somewhat thin. However, it gave me many good ideas for future deliveries. For example, if the overall time design is six hours in a day, I would know how to design interactions to match the content.
The final phase was added after communication with the organizers, utilizing action learning to enhance participant engagement. It proved to be effective; although there were only a few people, this segment significantly elevated the overall experience. If we had executed the first two phases as planned, it would have likely felt very dull.
Finally, by visualizing the results on the wall, the systematic nature of this sharing was comprehensively enhanced. The key is that embedded supervision is inherently linked to action learning, and this time we achieved integration, which worked quite well. In the future, this part should be strengthened.