COMMENT FROM VIV WRIGHT (in response to previous post)
From: Viv Wright [mailto:vrdwright@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 8:38 AM
To: proboattraining@proboat.comSubject: Training
Interesting subject and one that I have been involved in for a number of years. As an vocational educational instructor at a technical college and later as a maritime and aviation training consultant, I have come across all types of training delivered in many different ways so hopefully I can add a few observations to the discussion.
The greatest failure of training is lack of planning, or as you put it, a strategy. Much adult training (I make the assumption that it is adult vocational training that we are discussing here) is ad-hoc last minute band aids to a greater problem. The problem is the lack of understanding of training progression or even the purpose of training. This last point is important as the purpose of training is not always in-line with the business needs.
As an example, many companies are required to conduct or have outside training delivered for such things as Health and Safety, or new software or orientation for new staff. They ask for volunteers and usually get a large number for a variety of reasons but not always the right reasons or suitability. Same goes for internal software or process training, everyone wants to do it but the business probably only needs two or three directly affected people to actually take the course. The first item – lack of understanding of training progression - is very common and results in “orphan” training programs that serve no long-time needs and cost the company time and money. There is significant skill fade factor in any vocational training if the skill is not put to practical use. (http://www.hfidtc.com/research/training/training-reports/phase-2/2-10-3-2-skill-fade.pdf)
The first step is analysis; what is the issue and is training a solution. This step is so important, but surprisingly not always followed. Companies just decide that they need some type of training to address a perceived process deficiency and farm out a tender for expensive and probably useless training – that is not to say the training delivery or content are useless, but the lack of analysis and forethought renders the training useless which equates to cost and personnel dissatisfaction when they realise that their efforts and new skills cannot be used. The point of analysis is to determine first off what the issues are and to come up with solutions. Training may not actually be a solution or required, this is because it is not always the answer to a skills deficiency. Companies quite often find that the skills already exist within the workforce but are not being utilised and a straightforward re-allocation of responsibilities and/or staff can solve the problem.
I bring this up first because training is not always the solution; but to focus on the forum question as to types of training delivery? There are so many methods and depending on the type of training required, it is impossible to come up with “one type fits all” answer. Mentoring is very strong, especially in a “Hands-on” environment. We used to call this an apprenticeship where a young training is attached to a mentor or series of mentors and their training is supplemented by formal studies. But as pointed out in the forum, it is time consuming and detracts a skilled person from their main role which is to make a profit for the company. Now it is more common to expect a new entrant to come to the workplace with the formal training in place and to go through a skills transfer phase which is to convert their formal training into a daily production process. However without a good strategy to “convert” that training to the shop floor, one gets the scenario, “forget what you learned at college, this is how it is done”! so not necessarily the best use of prior training.
Much has been said about Computer Based Training (CBT). I have used it and taught with it. CBT has its place in a training strategy but is not a standalone for training delivery because of the missing elements of teamwork, peer review and instructor led training. CBT is good for refresher and maintenance training but only if there is a progress test at the end!
The worst possible training is instructor-led, delivered power-point training with no interaction from the class. Most presentations are too long and too elaborate and detract by its very visuals the information trying to be put across. Presentations need to be short and to the point to reinforce what is being taught and absorbed by the student.
http://www.wisepedagogy.com/blog/?p=339 Good article on how to present a presentation!
One of the most successful methods of training is Problem Based Learning (see http://www.iop.org/education/higher_education/stem/problem-based/page_50125.html) puts the learning in the hands of the student. Sounds counter-intuitive? But in fact it has been widely used in the medical field. Students are put into a group (so they learn group dynamics and teamwork) and are given an open-ended problem (more than one solution) and told to research and come up with a solution(s). This what happens in real-life everyday but they will have help from the instructor, not to solve the problem for the students. but as a facilitator to suggest approaches to the problem. There is no right or wrong answer just good and bad solutions. PBL engages the students, gives them control, and from my experience it works!
So to close this off. There are a multitude of delivery methods but whatever is chosen (best to mix and match delivery) it has to have a purpose both for the trainee and the company. As the blog author stated, there must be a strategy. I will add that there must also be a “process” which is another lengthy subject!
All the best with this worthwhile endeavour.
Viv Wright MNI
Here's a comment from marine surveyor and ProBoat E-Training instructor Pat Kearns:
ReplyDeleteIn training as Viv discusses, the solutions are “us,” already there but perhaps not yet identified, organized and implemented as training tools.
The solutions already exist. It’s a matter of moving them from their unrecognized state and into the light. Within a workforce (profession, trade, etc.) are already the solutions to training but they are embedded in people doing the work. People who are not yet seen as essential training/educational tools for passing the skills/knowledge to others. A person doing a job does not often see him/her self as an educator nor does that value of the worker’s output translate well on the bottom line when put to transferring experientially gained knowledge and skills into a training situation. That is an important point of consciousness raising that must be acknowledged if critical workforce skills are to be preserved.
I suppose this thinking is already contained in considerations within discussions of ROI but maybe we are seeing it “out loud” in what Viv is saying. After a few reads of his letter, I definitely felt the proverbial thump on the head. In any case, his words incited my own thought process to conclude that the “doers” are key training resources and their “doing” can become training in face-to-face or with the use of today’s communication technology.
The hard part comes in helping the “doers” become viable teachers. Without that, we’ll be left with “doers” and teachers but not “doers” who can teach the doing. The Medieval apprentice concept rises again. With technology, we can have a few masters bringing their skills to many apprentices.
So much to do; so little time.
Pat