- OK, I ll stick my neck out on this one and say that I don t think that the online training is so hot either. On-line isn t training in the same way thatMessage 1 of 5 , Mar 18 6:09 PMView SourceOK, I'll stick my neck out on this one and say that I don't think that the
online "training" is so hot either. On-line isn't training in the same way that
Before you start hittin' the keys, hear me out. I'm not some Luddite; hell,
anyone who sees me here knows I spend entirely too much time online both
recreationally and professionally. And I know that today's learners have different
needs, and the BSA is trying to jump into the modern era by meeting them with
(among other things) online training for people who are too dam' busy to go to
an actual class with, y'know, actual people in it. And I know that this thang
is supposed to be more "interactive" than just passively watching a video
(although, IMHO, it's a near call). And I know that the interface with Scoutnet
gives records, at least theoretically.
Where on the online "course" do you get to ask questions? Where do you get to
hear the voices of other peers, meet people, get to know the training
staffers, have someone pick up your misconceptions and help you straighten them out,
get the skinny on local laws, get the handout that has all your council
contact info on it, see the youth videos if you want to borrow them to take home for
the week, see that great poster that compares all the YP youth training with
respect to age and stage (don't ask..it was a WB project)..... you get the
I think it's a prime example of something we have the technology to do, but
that isn't necessarily the right thing to do. Sure, it's more convenient, and
the theory is that some folks getting some training is better than no folks
getting any training. But I'm still not convinced that this is an effective way
to train adults in youth protection, just to get them cards.
Which brings us full circle. "....isn't training."
Flameproofies on...and I'm outta this job in three months anyway <G>....
Cape Cod & Islands Council, MA
I useta be an eagle, NE-I-188
and a staffer, NE-I-209, 234
Nat'l Scout Jambo H&S service, 97, 01, 05
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- I am working on Woodbadge staff development for the first time. Couldn t help but make an overhead with the Dilbert powerpoint poisoning cartoon for myMessage 2 of 5 , Mar 19 3:03 PMView SourceI am working on Woodbadge staff development for the first time. Couldn't
help but make an overhead with the Dilbert "powerpoint poisoning" cartoon
for my first presentation.
ATTENTION YOUNG ADULTS AND TEENAGERS!!
If you are tired of being hasseled by unreasonable parents...NOW IS THE TIME
FOR ACTION! Move out and pay your own way while you still know everything!!
Going to the Boy Scout National Jamboree in 2005!
- ... that the ... same way that ... You d no luddite. :) I work in the IT field, and so have had various experiences with on- line training. When I worked onMessage 3 of 5 , Mar 22 10:26 AMView Source--- In email@example.com, wahowland@a... wrote:
> OK, I'll stick my neck out on this one and say that I don't thinkthat the
> online "training" is so hot either. On-line isn't training in thesame way that
> reading isn't.You'd no luddite. :)
I work in the IT field, and so have had various experiences with on-
line training. When I worked on my second master's degree, most of
my courses were done on-line and my experiences with them ran the
gamut of being as good as in-person training to litte better then
reading a book and sending in assignments. So my only caution is to
not lump in ALL on-line training as the same.
The on-line training for YPT is one type, were you read stuff on the
screen, watch videos, and then do some simple tasks to
somehow 'prove' you did the training. But there is little or no
interaction with a trainer to be sure you really understood the
material (which regardless if you use videos/ppt, is the REAL
value/power of having a GOOD trainer deliver training). That's why I
and many of my co-workers dislike this kind of training.
I have had on-line training in which there was a real
trainer 'delivering' the training (using PPT type thing) in real
time, which meant there was a means for interaction with the trainer
and other participants. These sorts of on-line training was pretty
good, but it loses the other advantages of on-line training of being
able to take it when YOU want, rather then taking it at a set time.
There is nothing wrong with the proper use of PPT/videos. A trainer
need to know the material and be able to ADD to it from their own
knowledge and experiences, and be able to re-explain it for the
audience to be sure they do understand it. This, as I noted, is the
advantage of having a real trainer give training, rather then watch a
tape, read a book, etc.
- It is interesting that most of the comments on this thread measure good training not by ojective standards applicable to the trainer (does she speak clearly,Message 4 of 5 , Mar 23 1:22 PMView SourceIt is interesting that most of the comments on this thread measure good
training not by ojective standards applicable to the trainer (does she speak
clearly, vary the pace and/or methods of presentation, repeat important
points, etc.), but by subjective standards applicable to the students (Would
they want to come back to training? Were they entertained? Did they look
like they learned something?).
Nor was the material itself really mentioned. Remember back in the Watergate
era, when the Nixon tapes were released? Some network -- perhaps it was PBS
-- televised speakers just reading the transcripts in monotone. Yet the
content made it interesting (and entertaining). On the other hand, even if
it was Auntie Beans teaching calculus, I don't think I'd get much out of the
course because of the content.
I guess my view of it is that the quality of training has three main
components. The first is the content, the actual material being presented
-- is it selected and arranged to meet the goals of the training? Is it too
much, too little, too complex, too basic? Do the various sections build on
each other, or are they arranged haphazardly? The second component is the
presentation -- is the method of presentation (live trainer, video,
computer, audiotape, reading material) selected to meet the goals of the
training? Is the method of presentation appropriate for the material?
Appropriate for the audience? Are the location, time, and facilities
appropriate for the material and comfortable and convenient for the
audience? Is the method of presentation audience-friendly? (That is, is
the live presenter skilled? Is the typeface large enough on the handouts?
Are the computer directions easy to follow?) The third component is an
objective measurement of learning -- did the participants actually learn
what they were supposed to learn? Were the goals of the training met? Have
they put the training to use? Do they remember what they learned six months
later? Two years later?
Get tax tips, tools and access to IRS forms � all in one place at MSN Money!
- This past weekend I attended a conference and some training. One presenter did read mostly from the syllabus. But he did it in a manner that if you were notMessage 5 of 5 , Mar 23 2:32 PMView SourceThis past weekend I attended a conference and some training. One presenter did read mostly from the syllabus. But he did it in a manner that if you were not looking at him, and most of the time you were looking at a power point, you did not know that he was reading.
It was his first time presenting this leadership workshop. He did a fine job speaking. Actually it was his first time teaching any training program.