Re: Importance of Trainers (was: Re: Summary: Tech Trainers and

["Steven J. Owens" <puff -at- NETCOM -dot- COM>]

Wayne Douglass writes:

> Here are some generalizations based upon my experience as a manager of
> technical publications in an education department at another company.
> "Training" in this context means stand-up instruction rather than
> computer-based training [...]
> [...]
> In short, the manuals were designed to be read as independent
> entities; the classroom materials were designed to support
> instruction.
> [...]
> A rational approach to training would suggest that the course
> materials should be based on the manuals, freeing the the trainers
> to concentrate on pedagogy instead of technical accuracy. In fact,
> the trainers typically rewrote the manuals in their Student Guides
> and produced a generally inferior version of the same material.

     From my point of view as a writer who worked with trainers in an
organization that evolved over the range of options (trainers wrote their
own stuff, then we wrote it with them, then they used our books, then one
of our folks was transferred into their dept to do both) I'll confirm
the above.

     There is a valid point in having actual instructional materials,
besides the obvious psychological ploy that giving the students
something physical to take home makes them feel the class was
worthwhile.  Different formats serve different purposes.  The course
structure doesn't (and sometimes can't) mirror the manual structure.

     Before I left that company we'd settled on giving the students a
copy of the appropriate reference manuals as well as a course guide &
study guide.  I think that approach had the added benefit that it
forced the students to work with the manuals and learn their way
around them, and it also gave the writers a valuable opportunity to
get feedback on the manuals (we often had writers taking the training
classes for that purpose).

Steven J. Owens
puff -at- netcom -dot- com


 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=