Technical Training project

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jean-Marc Guillemette on December 16, 2008 at 7:47am

Hi Bettina,

Technical training generally involves acquiring skills or practical knowledge to perform tasks with clearly defined outcomes. It is more closely linked to performance improvement than other forms of training (even though performance improvement is the accepted as the goal of all workplace learning). For example, it's easier to see links between technical training on repairing equipment or performing lab work than it is to see them between leadership or management training. It is often more procedural than other types of training, involves a best way of doing things (regardless of if its procedural) and focuses on outcomes that are clearly definable using behavioral objectives. However, it is not only for 'technicians': training office workers on using software is also a form of technical training. It is training that focuses on becoming able to do something at a certain level of proficiency.

Jean-Marc

Permalink Reply by Bettina Davis on December 17, 2008 at 10:25am

Thank you Jean-Marc for your reply. I like the aspect of there being a best way of doing something which is hard to agree on for management or soft skills training. There seems to be a difference of opinion depending on the context/socialization of people givin a defintion on whether Technical Training includes only training for techncial people (engineering, manufacturing) or whether it also includes training for lawyers and nurses as whatever they need to learn is technical for them. People who don't come from such fields seem to call that professional training. Thoughts?

Jean-Marc Guillemette said:

Hi Bettina,

Technical training generally involves acquiring skills or practical knowledge to perform tasks with clearly defined outcomes. It is more closely linked to performance improvement than other forms of training (even though performance improvement is the accepted as the goal of all workplace learning). For example, it's easier to see links between technical training on repairing equipment or performing lab work than it is to see them between leadership or management training. It is often more procedural than other types of training, involves a best way of doing things (regardless of if its procedural) and focuses on outcomes that are clearly definable using behavioral objectives. However, it is not only for 'technicians': training office workers on using software is also a form of technical training. It is training that focuses on becoming able to do something at a certain level of proficiency.

Jean-Marc

Permalink Reply by Jean-Marc Guillemette on December 18, 2008 at 9:35am

Hi Bettina,

Technical training is not about a position title but rather about the nature of the tasks for which training is required. Accordingly, managers, human resource specialists or any other person in an organization may need to complete technical training to perform some tasks. I realize some people are reluctant to be associated with technical training because of the [unfortunate] stigma they associate with words like "technical". The best example I can think of to explain how anyone may need technical training, is learning to use the office software so prevalent in the workplace. I therefore recommend always thinking about the purpose of the training to be offered to determine whether or not it involves technical training and how it should be structured, rather than position titles.

Bettina Davis said:

Thank you Jean-Marc for your reply. I like the aspect of there being a best way of doing something which is hard to agree on for management or soft skills training. There seems to be a difference of opinion depending on the context/socialization of people givin a defintion on whether Technical Training includes only training for techncial people (engineering, manufacturing) or whether it also includes training for lawyers and nurses as whatever they need to learn is technical for them. People who don't come from such fields seem to call that professional training. Thoughts?

Jean-Marc Guillemette said:

Hi Bettina,

Technical training generally involves acquiring skills or practical knowledge to perform tasks with clearly defined outcomes. It is more closely linked to performance improvement than other forms of training (even though performance improvement is the accepted as the goal of all workplace learning). For example, it's easier to see links between technical training on repairing equipment or performing lab work than it is to see them between leadership or management training. It is often more procedural than other types of training, involves a best way of doing things (regardless of if its procedural) and focuses on outcomes that are clearly definable using behavioral objectives. However, it is not only for 'technicians': training office workers on using software is also a form of technical training. It is training that focuses on becoming able to do something at a certain level of proficiency.

Jean-Marc

Permalink Reply by Anastasia Astridge on February 1, 2009 at 9:56am

Technical training in my opinion should never be a standalone offering. In theory technical training would train skills. Something you can measure and test empirically. BUT from my experience technical training is only useful longer term if it is embedded into at least some process training - explaining how all those skills you were learning about fit into the bigger picture. Demonstrating how someone’s actions affect people further down the line. Even on the basic level of MsWord training (does anyone deliver this kind of training at all anymore:-) ?) What happens if you format things incorrectly? Who would be impacted? What about addresses and serial letters - what happens at the end of the month when finance needs to send out serial letters that you in sales department created (you get the point) ...

So technical training is a more hands-on part of a business process/familiarisation training program - this is how i would define it.

Permalink Reply by Jean-Marc Guillemette on February 3, 2009 at 9:42am

Hi Anastasia,

Your comment seems to reflect the need to always take into account the context in which training is provided to ensure learners not only become able to use specific knowledge and sklls but can apply them in the proper context. This is what the 'S' in ISD (Instructional Systems Design) is all about. Adopting a systemic perspective requires becoming familiar with the different conditions, constraints or other factors that influence job performance and how they influence learning. Technical training and business processes are therefore not so much two different things that should be considered together. Instead, technical training should be designed using an ISD methodology that requires looking at all the factors that impact on job performance and how they should be considered to create highly relevant learning experiences.


Anastasia Astridge said:

Technical training in my opinion should never be a standalone offering. In theory technical training would train skills. Something you can measure and test empirically. BUT from my experience technical training is only useful longer term if it is embedded into at least some process training - explaining how all those skills you were learning about fit into the bigger picture. Demonstrating how someone’s actions affect people further down the line. Even on the basic level of MsWord training (does anyone deliver this kind of training at all anymore:-) ?) What happens if you format things incorrectly? Who would be impacted? What about addresses and serial letters - what happens at the end of the month when finance needs to send out serial letters that you in sales department created (you get the point) ...

So technical training is a more hands-on part of a business process/familiarisation training program - this is how i would define it.

Permalink Reply by Bart Castle on February 3, 2009 at 11:06am

Know this thread is dated, however, wanted to add this simple note from experience. One of the short-comings of much technical training is its failure to adequately provide at least some basic conceptual knowledge about the list of steps, which are required to do a task - the typical topic of much technical training.

If a CPA does not know some of the concept behind how to book and entry he/she will be lost, or "creative" when he/she encounters a situation that does not meet the training example exactly. In some industries these creative solutions are annoying or expensive. In some blue-collar settings, especially those where the workforce is primarily male, employees would rather "try" something than admit they are lost, which can be very dangerous (I am one, so I am going to use the stereotype without flinching).

The balance of some context (or conceptual) information and on point task information is the $64,000 question in training design.

Permalink Reply by Margaret on February 3, 2009 at 1:08pm

Bart Castle said:

Know this thread is dated, however, wanted to add this simple note from experience. One of the short-comings of much technical training is its failure to adequately provide at least some basic conceptual knowledge about the list of steps, which are required to do a task - the typical topic of much technical training.

If a CPA does not know some of the concept behind how to book and entry he/she will be lost, or "creative" when he/she encounters a situation that does not meet the training example exactly. In some industries these creative solutions are annoying or expensive. In some blue-collar settings, especially those where the workforce is primarily male, employees would rather "try" something than admit they are lost, which can be very dangerous (I am one, so I am going to use the stereotype without flinching).

The balance of some context (or conceptual) information and on point task information is the $64,000 question in training design.

Permalink Reply by Gordon Newman on February 3, 2009 at 8:33pm

Having had a significant amount of experience with designing, developing and delivering both technical training and so called 'soft skill' training I see a couple of major differences:
- technical training tends to be more subject matter centric
- technical training tends to involve a lot of show, tell, do type repetition with little opportunity for challenge
- technical training, be it on how to operate the office photo copier to running a complex piece of manufacturing equipment is more often than not delivered by someone who the organization believes is the best qualified at the task. Unfortunately for many trainees this does not always mean they are the best at communicating effectively

Soft skill or leadership / management training on the other hand tends to be more facilitative in nature. It focuses on the learner discovering the answer and is therefore more learner centric. As has been pointed out previously, it also tends to be somewhat difficult to quantify. Definitely there are schools of best practice in soft skills like in technical training but soft skills lack the "right" answer in most instances.

To sum up, technical training can be done by an experienced individual with the right communication skills but not by someone who just is very good at doing the task involved.

Permalink Reply by Ajay Khankhoje on February 5, 2009 at 6:42am

Dear Bettina,

Technical Training generally involves 3 aspects, Theoretical/Conceptual Knowledge, Skills to Use the the knowledge efficiently, Best Practices/Practical knowledge.

It happens in various stages of ones career cycle-On boarding, Re skilling, up gradation , New technology adoption, Dive deeper.

Please map this to a grid with aspect on the Y axis & stages on the X axis,

align the grid to the JD's of the technical staff & you have the entire cycle of Need Analysis to delivery on board.

Do let me know if you need any more elaboration.

Regards,
Ajay

Permalink Reply by Gordon Newman on February 5, 2009 at 10:16am

Great concept Ajay. Something that every organization should but does not invariably have in place. Prime example of how it works efficiently is a restaurant chain on the west coast of the USA and Canada, Earl's Tin Palace. Had the opportunity to tour one in Calgary and the entire back wall of the servery back room was filled with just such a chart with a third component being added, the employee name.

Regards
Gordon

Permalink Reply by Gary Slavin on February 5, 2009 at 1:17pm

Bettina,

I was trained as a developer of self-paced training courseware for the IT industry. The training we received was based on mastery learning aligned with the criterion referenced instruction (CRI) model of Rober Mager. Mastery learning is closely aligned with the use of instructional objectives and the systematic design of instructional programs.

One of the key elements in mastery learning is clearly specifying what is to be learned and how it will be evaluated. This enables you to assess how well the student has learned certain skills and provide feedback. You can also test to determine if course objectives have been met. In other words, has the student mastered the skill being taught? I believe that designing training in this fashion will work for both technical and non-technical topics.

I hope this information is helpful,

Gary Slavin

Permalink Reply by Bettina Davis on March 5, 2009 at 6:01pm

Thank you everyone for adding your thoughts. Much appreciated. Have a good day! Bettina

Gary Slavin said:

Bettina,

I was trained as a developer of self-paced training courseware for the IT industry. The training we received was based on mastery learning aligned with the criterion referenced instruction (CRI) model of Rober Mager. Mastery learning is closely aligned with the use of instructional objectives and the systematic design of instructional programs.

One of the key elements in mastery learning is clearly specifying what is to be learned and how it will be evaluated. This enables you to assess how well the student has learned certain skills and provide feedback. You can also test to determine if course objectives have been met. In other words, has the student mastered the skill being taught? I believe that designing training in this fashion will work for both technical and non-technical topics.

I hope this information is helpful,

Gary Slavin

▶ Reply to This