Re: CBT vs. Training - my thoughts

[Shorter Rankin <srank -at- PACBELL -dot- NET>]

On Tue, 17 Mar 1998 10:05:26 -0500, Ron D Rhodes wrote:
>     On CBT v. Training
>
>     Elissa wrote:
>
>     <<<<<<<What are some thoughts out there on Computer Based Training
>     versus training in the flesh? Are we just fooling ourselves or is CBT
>     the next wave of effective information transmission?>>>>>
>
>     My thoughts,
[snip]
>     A well-written CBT is effective.
>     But the operative phrase is "well written."  Companies need to
>     understand that, while a bad trainer can usually communicate a little
>     knowledge at the very least, a bad CBT doesn't communicate anything at
>     all.
[snip]
>...  If I ever
>     figure it out, I'll let you know.
>
>     Ron Rhodes
[snip]

Worse, one mistake in the CBT can be deadly.
A post on the list mentioned that Manpower
Technical offered a 'free' CBT on JavaScript
in exchange for a resume.

The JavaScript CBT was pretty low level
stuff in general but was  OK until I
took the test.  I kept getting a wrong
answer message and selected 'show me'.
The 'correct' answer contained  capitalization
which was different from the question. IOW
the CBT designers didn't even proof read
their text well enough to catch this.

Another test question lead to a wrong
answer message. Again, I selected
'show me'. Turns out that the student
has to select SAVE AS rather than SAVE
in order to get an answer scored as correct.
In the real world either answer would be OK.

Based on this, I'd say a bad CBT conveys
that the script writers didn't care enough
about what they were doing. Memories of
"Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
playing in the background.

Cheers,

Shorter Rankin
Sacramento, CA