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:Thu, 19 Mar 1998 15:22:03 -0600
*snip*
> My thoughts,
>
> Stand-up training is always better.
> That's my opinion. But I am a realist. Companies are going to "follow
> the money," and CBTs are much cheaper than stand-up.
Ridiculous statement. Stand-up training is the
worst way to learn anything, particularly any kind of training that takes
place on a computer.
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.
The combination of CBT with a facilator is perhaps the best way to learn.
In fact from my experience I would rate learning capabilities of different
techniques as follows:
1) CBT + Facilitator in a Lab setting.
2) CBT + Facilator online only
3) CBT only
4) Stand up training in a follow along style. (I call this the "follow
the bouncing ball" method)
5) Stand up lecture.
I'll stop here for now as Im sure this list will have a lot to say
about this, giving me ample oppurtunity to justisfy and explain my
position.
