In particular this:
"Leave out key pieces of info that you will tell them so they don't just rely on the documentation. Actually put in errors or omit telling them things so they DO make mistakes and they learn from this."
Although I may be taking it out of context, because I do not know Matrix's product..... But as a general rule giving people wrong information and expecting them to then correct it is not the done thing.... But again I don't really know fully what he means by it.
Putting it into my context - I train a number of technical elements in processes and use of systems, but linked in with soft skills like rapport building, influencing, coaching etc - The people I train work with customers and that is the main focus.
That aside, unless I was doing a session where I have told someone to specifically spot errors and correct them, I fundamentally disagree with just slipping them in.... that's not training by definition. Setting people up for a fall has a very negative mental effect on someone and WILL effect the remaining learning following that happening, though a lack of trust and confidence.
I also disagree with the comment "stick to the script".
Being a good trainer doesn't mean reading from a manual / course guide and relaying the information. If that were the case we would not need trainers and all learning would be done via reading / PC. Being able to facilitate training events in such a way that you can deviate from your guide is a tough skill, but one which is absolutely required if you want to have great training events. Saying to a delegate or group of delegates "no we are not going to talk about that because it is not in the guide" is a big no no - It is THEIR course and their needs should come first - So as long as it is RELEVANT then there should be some allowance for the conversation to go in this direction. The skill lies in what to allow and not allow, how to position what you will allow to happen, and then bringing it back to your agenda in a suitable time frame that does not impact on the learning overall.
A lot of this stuff is what makes the difference of someone being a "Subject Matter Expert" who is mentoring someone or a group and a "Trainer / Facilitator" who is teaching and coaching and guiding a group through their learning.
Advice I would have given would be basics around:
1. Always contract. Allow your delegates some autonomy around setting their contract of working together (ground rules essentially). This makes it easier to control the group and them have a great learning experience.
2. Taking and grouping the objectives and expectations of individuals, linking back to these through the event and reviewing them at the end of the event, ensuring you have covered them off and making the delegate feel that they have got what they want from it.
3. A full agenda setting, including housekeeping, getting to know everyone a little better and finding out about any individual requirements (this last bit might be in private over coffee break if its learning difficulties etc, but you should have found out about those BEFORE the course).
4. A full session objectives overview at the start of each session, with a full session objectives recap at the end of each session, referring back to the learning to reinforce that the objectives were met.
5. Plenty of asking questions of the delegates during 4, to check and test their understanding.
6. Being as facilatative as possible to allow more participation of the delegates rather than you talking - Especially around soft skills / less technical sessions. Things like system training it is more difficult, but you can still invite conversation through thinking about impacts of how they use the system / what benefits and challenges they might face with it....
7. Plenty of coffee / tea / water and biscuits / fruit
I could talk for hours about loads of other points, but this is a lot of what I would pick out in terms of the context of the question you were given.
