Re: CBT vs. Stand up

[Jason Willebeek-LeMair <jlemair -at- ITEXCHSRV2 -dot- PHX -dot- MCD -dot- MOT -dot- COM>]

Scott,

Gosh.  I guess you never met my wife.  She remembers everything she
hears, which makes it nearly impossible to win an argument.  8-)

More to the point, what do you consider CBT.  When I think of it, I
think of a (perhaps multimedia) application, developed in something like
Authorware, that can instruct and, in a limited manner, provide
feedback.

If that is the case, why bother with CBT?  Why not just train directly
on the application?

For example, I went to a Visual Basic class.  It was a combination of
lecture (this is a method, here is what you can do with it, etc.) and
hands-on programming.  The instructor was invaluable because I tend to
ask a LOT of questions (what if. . ., what about. . ., can you. . .).

I tried a CBT version of Visual Basic training, which was okay, but it
could not anticipate all of my questions, which I found to be very
frustrating and limiting.

If you consider CBT to be hands on training (like my VB class), then of
course I agree -- that way is best.  But if I recall correctly (and I am
not my wife, so my recollection may not be accurate), the original post
had to do with eliminating the instructor in favor of CBT, which I think
is a BAD THING (at least for the level of detail I usually demand).

I must say, though, that I have never been to a class on computer
software that was not hands-on.

Jason

> ----------
> From:         Scott Gray
> Reply To:     Scott Gray
> Sent:         Friday, March 20, 1998 1:02 PM
> To:   TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
> Subject:      Re: CBT vs. Stand up
>
> Who on this list disagrees with  the following  saying?
>
> I hear and I forget, I see and I remember, I do and I understand"
> -Chinese Proverb
>
>