Home | Login | Recent Changes | Search | All Pages | Help

TestsForTrainingPrograms

See StuartScott.

Which of our training programs actually work? How are people actually learning what they need to know? How can we focus more attention on learning, and less on training?

StuartScott 2004.06.11

Adapted from another forum where I'm heckling . . .

There's a measure / metric from eduction / training practice that can be applied here. The official name escapes me at the moment. It's essentially a clue presence / clue distribution measure. So "Do we know that adding people to a late project makes the project later?", and "How broadly propagated in the organization is the clue that adding people to a late project makes the project later, which we assume is true in the grand, universal sense?" Another measure is the clue in practice: "How broadly, automatically and reliably does our practice reflect this clue?"

Here are two tricks I think people miss.

1) You can't help but learn stuff in the course of doing work. So take the time to make the report. Start by asking: "What kind of thing did you learn?" 2) "Knowing" something has multiple meanings. The fact that one guy in an organization "gets it" for any particular "it", doesn't mean that the organization "gets it" or "uses it" or whatever.

The most annoying circumstance is when the organization is designed (responsibilites, processes, practices, standards) in line with one model of reality, when evidence indicates that another model is in play. Like, for example the seemingly endless habit of adding people to a late project to "speed it up" while denying that (all other things being equal) this will actually slow things down.

But that's just me. I prefer to design the way the work is done in line with the way the world seems to work. Less - er - work that way.

-- JimBullock, 2002.06.14

• People learn by practice. How much of your training programs incorporate practice?
  
  
• Check to see if people's incentives are aligned with the training. I once trained an entire development organization in reviews and inspections. A year later, no one did formal inspections. Why? Because management, in their infinite wisdom, gave people bonuses when they worked late and fixed defects, not when they prevented problems from happening.

-- JohannaRothman 2004.06.14

• What do the people to be "trained" already know?

If you can find that out first, you can focus on what's missing.

One of the things I like about experiential learning, aka simulations, is that I learn something every time -- even if it wasn't what the designer intended -- because the environment is so rich in information.

-- MikeMelendez 2004.06.14

Most likely differently than they're being trained. ;{) There are different learning styles: abstract thinking, watching, doing, feeling ... I found the information at http://reviewing.co.uk/research/experiential.learning.htm useful. I agree with Johanna about practice.

How can we focus more attention on learning, and less on training?

What do you mean when you use the words "training" and "learning"? How do they compare with each other? DonGray 2004.06.16

How can we focus more attention on learning, and less on training?

Stop the tell training. Start the experiential learning.

SteveSmith 2004.06.16

SteveSmith 2004.06.16

We've had very good results for two years from a couple of experiential courses that simulate real projects, including specific business problems, technologies, teamwork issues, and client politics. Yet the company hasn't really embraced the approach, even though the learners give it rave reviews.

It's a classic "green eggs and ham" problem. People who haven't tried it aren't sure they'll like it. (Paradoxically, they know they'll dislike the usual "tell-style" course, but they're more likely to attend one.)

It's hard to convince managers to sponsor this kind of class without a concerted, personalized sales effort. They want to see the course materials so they can evaluate exactly what they're getting. And of course, they're troubled when we don't have student handouts and PowerPoint slides to show them.

Has anyone else seen this phenomenon? Got any good tactics for overcoming this kind of educational conservatism in the workplace?

StuartScott 2004.06.20

If they still want documentation, do you have user manuals or tip sheets or print outs of online help that you can show them to give some idea of what it's about? Some of the AYE sessions hand out a few notes on the topic and a bibliography. SherryHeinze 2004.06.21

If you succeed in selling the courses, you might restructure that one a bit and offer it as well as a high level management course. SherryHeinze 2004.06.24

To me training passes on knowledge and skills by sharing and demonstration. The recipient demonstrates the knowledge and skills proving comprehension and ability. Feedback continuously flows as the activity progresses.

Recipients are passive during �telling training� which allows their minds to wander (at least mine does). The Raspberry Jam Law dictates the broader the coverage, the less the penetration. �Telling training� to 100 people shares less knowledge and skill than experiential training to 10 people.

The confusion training/learning stems from the education system where lessons are simple, linear and bounded. Even the experiential labs have predetermined results.

We live and work in rich, non-linear people based systems that render our scholastic reasoning methods limited and occasionally counter-effective.

People know they don�t like lecturing; it�s spread thin and (usually) not a good use of time. Experiential training is different and an unknown. Convincing management that training and lecturing are different is the first step to avoiding �telling training�. DonGray 2004.06.25

When doing in-house training, I always contract for a follow-up visit after an appropriate time, to see what people are doing with the training. It's paid for in advance, to remove one client excuse for not doing it. Without this feedback, how would we learn ourselves? -- JerryWeinberg 2004.06.29