Reading is not training
- 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 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!
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, 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, 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 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.