TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: CBT vs. Training - my thoughts From:Scott Gray <scotty -at- CM -dot- MATH -dot- UIUC -dot- EDU> Date:Fri, 20 Mar 1998 12:00:12 -0600
> >
> Although I don't agree with the first assertion (stand-up training is always
> better), I agree even less with the second (it's the worst). It's an obvious
> overgeneralization. Provide some facts to support the idea that nonskilled
> people who learn to use complex production equipment learn better if they
> don't have stand-up training, or even better, that they can learn how to
> perform fine motor activities by watching CBT, then I'll consider it.
The key word you have to be careful with is "watching" CBT. I am not
suggesting that anyone merely "watch" CBT has to be a "participation" to
be effective.
The other thing is that I am not suggesting that people learn without
the help of instructors. I am suggesting that instructors need to change
how they communicate with the student. In every instance where I used
CBT to train students it always means MORE WORK for me. It is much easier
to stand in front of a group of students and lecture than it is to let the
students loose and walk around help them invidually or in groups.
>
> > Think about something you are good at. Did you learn it all from
> > listening to someone tell you what to do? You probably took their
> > suggestions yes, but then you went off and taught yourself, coming back
> > and getting feedback every once and while from someone. All said and done
> > we teach OURSELVES.
> >
> You're playing semantic games here with the term "teach." You're talking
> about "learning," which can only take place internally. Teaching IS the
> process of giving suggestions, demonstrating, providing feedback, and
> explaining concepts. That all takes place between two points of
> communication, whether it's a CBT and user or an instructor and student.
> Could CBT (at this point in its development) provide spontaneous feedback?
> Learn to change tack when a user doesn't understand? Know by the user's
> nonverbal reactions that he or she is confused and respond in a way that
> helps alleviate the confusion?
>
> You note that CBT with a facilitator in a lab is the best method of
> training. Isn't this, in abstract, the same as a stand-up training session
> with opportunities for hands-on training? How is the latter "the worst way
> to learn?"
>
> Not every subject lends itself to CBT. Not all people learn best on
> computers. If we're going to discern the value of CBT, let's be realistic
> about its limitations.
>
> > Bill Burns
> > Senior Technical Writer/Technology Consultant
> > ILE Communications
> > billdb -at- ile -dot- com
> >
>
>
>